Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[Helenic]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

Well it wasn't that long ago that the acronym 'PIGS' was being bandied about in relation to four European Union members with respect to their parlous economies...nothing I've seen since suggests much improvement to those four-and several more might be in a similar state...

Germany will be VERY willing to 'bankroll' the project for the same reason that Casinos are willing to give free food to players - the banker makes the profit, the punters cannot win overall. Germany has a net inflow of hundreds of billions of Euros a year from the EU, which comes from the peripheral countries, mainly - Spain and Greece especially. Those rescue packages for Greece, for example, were loans, not gifts - at an interest rate. The debts they were covering were.. guess what? Loans from Germany (and France too). It is like a drug dealer drip-feeding an addict just enough to keep them paying off their debts, which never reduce. Germany are VERY willing to do that - it has made them very rich and distorted the economics of the EU. This problem of imbalance is something that needs to be addressed if the EU is to survive, and of course the Treasury are very aware of this - Gordon Brown has spoken on this and worked for solutions for years, for example. But if the UK is leaving at the right time, that rightness of timing is more to do with immigration into the EU and the rise of the far-right. Immigration is de-stabilising if it is too rapid or too large, and Climate Change will lead to massive flows of people North from Sub-Saharan Africa, into Europe as crops fail, water supplies dry up etc etc. That risk has been known since studies in the 1970s. Since the response to such things has always been warfare, you can see the increasing destabilisation globally, increasing economic volatility and so forth as the results of the strain on resources. One of the more unpleasant consequences is a Fortress Europe - armed borders and a ruthless attitude to millions of refugees (not just the odd few hundred thousand). In any event, the motivation for Brexit is not a rational one, it is the greed of a right-wing minority that has been stirring up ant-European sentiment for their own profit, allied with a deep ignorance of reality on the part of the population - which is slowly coming to see just what the economy actually is.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by palo5

That's misleading. Actually, laws are agreed among sovereign states, ratified by the EU Parliament, and then set into law by the states. The EU Court has no function and no initiative, unless a member state is accused of breaking or not applying the law and the Court accepts the case. The bureaucracies (regulators) may identify transgressions, but they can't dictate any final decision in the way the Court can. That is reality

The term "ever closer union" comes from the original Treaty of Rome from the 1950's, and every Member State has agreed to it at some stage in its history. If they hadn't they wouldn't be Members

I'd hold to my characterization. "Ever closer Union" is the language -- and yes, folks agreed to it, but the implication was unrecognized. It means that Constitutional arrangements which ought be fixed are ephemeral. What was decided in Helsinki one day, may now be decided in Brussels the next, with no further appeal to Finnish voters.

That kind of ambiguity is a problem.

Similarly, if you look to the powers of the Brussels bureaucracy and the Strasbourg courts, you see kinds of abrogation of sovereignty that adhering nations plainly didn't anticipate. That's not just Brexiteers in the UK; Ireland is very Europe, but they're quite surprised to learn that Margaret Vestager has decided what she thinks Ireland's corporate tax rates should be.

Ideally, Constitutions don't offer these kinds of surprises. The US Constitution hammered out many of these thorny issues at the founding of the country (although famously not the thorniest one of all, slavery-- hence a very bloody war).

It is plainly a surpris to Britons to discover that someone in Brussels has the power to compel Abu Qatada to remain-- if you wanted to design an outrage to sour people on the idea of Europe, this would be an example.

One can note that this irritation with a Strasbourg ordered frontiers policy has had an impact far beyond the UK, the flood of migration is what swung nations like Poland and Hungary to dangerously reactionary territory. On being told "Europe compels you to permit migrants to trample your borders, and indeed to settle in your country" -- did they say "OK, we agreed to that?"

No, they said "screw you".

What's different is that the UK's challenge to the European Constitution was explicit and up front-- note that Brussels, Strasbourg and Berlin haven't indicated any interest in "making Budapest and Warsaw 'pay a price' for their defiance of European treaties".

[penfold007]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

It is plainly a surpris to Britons to discover that someone in Brussels has the power to compel Abu Qatada to remain-- if you wanted to design an outrage to sour people on the idea of Europe, this would be an example.

Who in Brussels has that power? I remember the case well and it was the ECtHR in Strasbourg that ruled that Qatada could not be deported. That court is not part of the EU, it does not fall under the power of the EU parliament, it is part of the CofE. The EU's court is the ECJ.

[penfold007]

Originally Posted by palo5

Of course they weren't. You have an unrepresentative Parliament, elected by FPTP where half the votes don't count. How could could they represent you with a system like that?

When all the main parties are committed to remaining in the EEC / EU , the electoral system makes no difference.

The reason for the groundswell of support for UKIP was that none of the mainstream parties that actually fielded candidates were offering an alternative to remain. Doesn't matter what electoral system if every candidate has the same view on a particular issue, you still can't change policy at the ballot box.

I've said before that I think the vote to leave was a terrible mistake, but I don't believe having the vote was a mistake, because there has been no credible alternative to vote for at a general election if you wanted to leave. UKIP were never credible, they were a personality cult, but they served as a lightning rod, they made at least some politicians realise that there was a significant part of the population whose voice was not being heard, whose wishes were not being represented by any of the major parties. To his credit, (and I would never vote for him, so it pains me to say this) Cameron holding the referendum allowed them to be heard and it was the right thing to do.

The fact that the British public made the wrong choice does not mean that we should not have been given that choice in the first place.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by penfold007

Who in Brussels has that power? I remember the case well and it was the ECtHR in Strasbourg that ruled that Qatada could not be deported. That court is not part of the EU, it does not fall under the power of the EU parliament, it is part of the CofE. The EU's court is the ECJ.

You are correct, I said Brussels when I meant Strasbourg . . . I was clearer about it in an earlier post on the thread (so yes, I do know the difference)

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Seen from abroad, so much does come down to migration and borders policy . . . Strasbourg's insistence that Britain was no longer the sovereign of its borders was an over-reach, an unnecessary interference in what even the most internationally minded would see as a nation's reasonable prerogative, like the desire to be rid of people like Abu Qatada.

. . . and its plain enough that the frustration that "Leave" feels is with both Brussels and Strasbourg. As the "European Constitution" is effectively not one document, but rather a number of treaties, and its instruments of government both bureaucratic and juridical, there's more than one burr in the saddle.

One might observe that many nations that are enthusiastic about some aspects of European integration have found popular revolt over others. Denmark, for example, decided to keep their currency-- that wasn't the government or the great and the good, that was a popular rejection in a referendum. This makes the EU a rather odd Federal union, in which there is quite a lot of heterogeneity in what constituent nation states think they have agreed to . . . As the American Civil War illustrates, such inconsistencies lead to grief.

Note that Denmark finally acceded to Maastricht in a later referendum, after a number of "opt outs" were negotiated.

So what's striking is that this European Constitution routinely meets with popular resistance, Britain's objections seem less an exception and more the rule.

A more thoughtful European negotiator, dealing with a more politically savvy Tory government ought have been able to avoid this mess.

[scoundrel]

Human rights are not reserved only for people we like or approve of. Another example would be Julian Assange, a man I despise. The US authorities were indeed lying in wait for him had he submitted to extradition to Sweden.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8636336.html

Their tactics are sound, although the inherent leakiness and indiscipline of Federal government agencies ("you can't get the staff") is also apparent. Assange will go to extraordinary lengths to evade justice.

But before it agrees to extradite Mr Assange, Britain, Ecuador or AN Other would need to satisfy itself that he will receive due process and a fair trial in the USA. Given the highly political nature of the case and the clear animosity towards him from authorities which have been leaked by him, I think that is doubtful. Unless the trial is going to be honest and fair, I would tell the USA (politely) to go fuck itself. It is up to the US authorities to make the application so everyone knows where they stand. In their shoes I would already have done it - the mere clandestine approach they are still adoptiing prejudices any claim theu want to make in a British court that Mr Assange will receive due process. Our courts are independent and will not extradite him unless a proper case is proven, so it is up the US authorities to get busy.

[judy84]

All MSM in the UK is now firmly anti-Brexit. The Daily Express and Star have been bought by Daily Mirror Group and the Daily Mail have replaced it's editor with a fanatical Remainer.


It is now impossible to watch TV or read newspapers without getting anti-Brexit propaganda. We know that the EU pays a lot of outlets to preach this; well it's UK taxpayers, the EU doesn't have any money. But how much is Soros paying Remainers such as MPs? Listening to Parliament I was wondering if MPs get paid say £1000 or £5000 for every time they say "People's Vote".


I did manage to find one amusing video about the possible saving of Brexit.


https://www.captiongenerator.com/117...g-saves-Brexit



I don't think it is possible now. However the EU Pandora's Box has been opened and the divisions and nastiness are not going to go away. If Brexit is not delivered then I think UKIP will gain in the next general election.


I also wonder how the EU will look after the May EU elections with more far right candidates elected.

[judy84]

Some thoughts of others:


"I have worked for UK secession from the EU for 25 years (since Maastricht). On 23rd June 2016, a majority of my compatriots agreed with me, and we voted to leave. If we do not now leave, the EU Referendum becomes a monument to the death of British democracy."


"Just remember, when Corbyn walks into No. 10, don’t blame the brexiteers. We won the referendum and then were subsequently ignored. Blame the Remainers running the government, the ones who never believed in Brexit, the ones who have intended to ruin this from the start."

[bloke57]

I'm wishing for a no-deal Brexit now.

The country will go down the tubes and then we can look forward to the show trials and public executions of Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Farage and Cameron.

Long time since there was something inspiring to watch on the telly. Nothing beats a choking tory...apart from a well-paid prostitute of course.

[Devius]

A group of five ministers in Theresa May's top team are hoping to persuade her to make changes to her draft Brexit deal, the BBC understands.

Leader of the Commons Andrea Leadsom is believed to be co-ordinating the group.

The five ministers include Michael Gove and Liam Fox - who on Friday publicly threw their support behind the PM - plus Penny Mordaunt and Chris Grayling.

Details:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46243745