Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[MatskiMonk]

So, here's a thought I've been wrestling with.

If it came to a vote on it, would I vote for the UK to try and rejoin the EU. Initially I though, of course not, that'd be silly - we'll be in a much weaker position than we were so why would we want to. Then I thought, well hang on, that's not right... the point of being a member of a somewhat democratic system is not to try and keep a scenario where you wield a disproportionate amount of power... that's the opposite of it, and something I'm very much against in the UK parliamentary system. Therefore, the merits of rejoining would have to stand up on their own. If I voted based purely on principle, I would probably have to vote to rejoin... but my gut still says, no that'd be a bad idea.

What would you do?

I mean, it's totally hypothetical, but once I found myself thinking about it, the topic was less black and white than I thought it would be.

 

[baldgye]

What would you do?

I would, but we'd join in a weaker position now than we held before.

the point of being a member of a somewhat democratic system is not to try and keep a scenario where you wield a disproportionate amount of power

What do you mean by this?

 

[Dotini]

What do you mean by this?

Perhaps he means to say that in certain (somewhat democratic?) systems people would be able to avoid taking responsibility for themselves and anyone else?

 

[Tired Tyres]

So, here's a thought I've been wrestling with.

If it came to a vote on it, would I vote for the UK to try and rejoin the EU. Initially I though, of course not, that'd be silly - we'll be in a much weaker position than we were so why would we want to. Then I thought, well hang on, that's not right... the point of being a member of a somewhat democratic system is not to try and keep a scenario where you wield a disproportionate amount of power... that's the opposite of it, and something I'm not very much against in the UK parliamentary system. Therefore, the merits of rejoining would have to stand up on their own. If I voted based purely on principle, I would probably have to vote to rejoin... but my gut still says, no that'd be a bad idea.

What would you do?

I mean, it's totally hypothetical, but once I found myself thinking about it, the topic was less black and white than I thought it would be.

Given that we'd lose our exemptions, rebait and be required to adopt the Euro, I'd say no. It wouldn't be rational. Not that would stop it from happening of course...

The only way is forward. Looking back will make the wheels fall off.

 

[Touring Mars]

After Brexit, it will become increasingly clear that the EU is moving towards full integration, and if the likes of Guy Verhofstadt get their way, the days of individual member states having a veto (on anything) will soon be over. So long as that is the case, the UK will never rejoin the EU.

"You cannot govern Europe if you still need the approval of all 28 member states"

He wants to abolish the 'unanimity rule', and basically remove the possibility of any member state holding an effective veto - on anything. If you follow his logic to its natural conclusion, this basically means a wholesale transfer of power from national governments to the EU - in other words, the very concept of a nation state being an EU member effectively becomes an oxymoron... by joining this future EU, you must agree to no longer being a nation state (in anything else but name).

Frankly, I don't think it is going to work. I reckon Verhofstadt and the proponents of a grand European state are in for a nasty shock when they test the waters on removing nation state veto rights.

 

[MatskiMonk]

What do you mean by this?

The special terms we've managed to negotiate for ourselves over the years probably shouldn't exist in the first place, if the system was fair. There shouldn't really be a stronger or weaker position in the first place (given the same variables).

(somewhat democratic?)

I don't believe we are, or truly want, an effective democracy, hence we are "somewhat democratic" - we do offer a vote, though peoples votes are systemically ignored. But no, that's not what I meant, it's not about responsibility, it's about us having the attitude that we'll only join in if we have more favourable terms than other nations - how is that actually fair?

He wants to abolish the 'unanimity rule', and basically remove the possibility of any member state holding an effective veto - on anything. If you follow his logic to its natural conclusion, this basically means a wholesale transfer of power from national governments to the EU - in other words, the very concept of a nation state being an EU member effectively becomes an oxymoron... by joining this future EU, you must agree to no longer being a nation state (in anything else but name).

Now, I'm not really defending one view over another here, I don't know enough about it all to do so, so the following is genuinely up for debate, and not necessarily my standpoint... but, our nation, and most others, accept "majority" decision making processes. Legislation would still have to pass through both a majority (of some form) in the Council whose members are typically the 'democratically' elected people in charge of a country, as well as a majority from the somewhat democratically elected representatives in the EP. We accept this as part of our day to day lives in our own parliament. So why not from Europe... I mean, it would be borderline insanity to expect our unelected upper house to agree 100% on all decisions, yet it's a requirement in the Council of Europe. Imagine if any one of our totally unelected Lords (including those good ol' religious clerics) could veto any law in the UK?

 

[baldgye]

The special terms we've managed to negotiate for ourselves over the years probably shouldn't exist in the first place, if the system was fair. There shouldn't really be a stronger or weaker position in the first place (given the same variables).

Ah yeah, fair enough. Yeah I have European friends who very much agree with this, long before Brexit too!

 

[Touring Mars]

Now, I'm not really defending one view over another here, I don't know enough about it all to do so, so the following is genuinely up for debate, and not necessarily my standpoint... but, our nation, and most others, accept "majority" decision making processes. Legislation would still have to pass through both a majority (of some form) in the Council whose members are typically the 'democratically' elected people in charge of a country, as well as a majority from the somewhat democratically elected representatives in the EP. We accept this as part of our day to day lives in our own parliament. So why not from Europe... I mean, it would be borderline insanity to expect our unelected upper house to agree 100% on all decisions, yet it's a requirement in the Council of Europe. Imagine if any one of our totally unelected Lords (including those good ol' religious clerics) could veto any law in the UK?

I don't disagree with the need to get rid of unanimity in order to get things done - but it is a fundamental shift away from the EU being a union of sovereign nation states toward being a sovereign power in its own right.

At present, EU member states make their own laws but also have a controlling influence over what laws the EU makes. In the absence of the unanimity rule, the opposite will start to happen. No member state will be able to veto EU laws they don't like, even EU laws that supercede or overrule their own national laws. This latter point is really where the trouble lies - as member states would no longer be in charge of their own law-making, as their sovereign powers would effectively be transferred away from national governments and into the EU institutions. Indeed, it is already the case that EU law has primacy over national law (for all EU member states), but (some) EU law itself is constrained by the requirement for all member states to agree to it. The danger is that removing this requirement renders all national laws vulnerable to change or overrule, thus stripping member states of any remaining sovereignty.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I don't disagree with the need to get rid of unanimity in order to get things done - but it is a fundamental shift away from the EU being a union of sovereign nation states toward being a sovereign power in its own right.

Fair enough, I can see what you are saying.

The next question would be then, what would it take for this to happen? Verhofstadt can say what he wants, but what swing does he actually have? Surely it would take a unanimous vote in the council AND a majority in parliament to get anywhere, if it was even proposed by the commission. If I'm correct in my understanding, even if Verhofstadt's opinion was shared with the rest of the MEP's in the centrist position within the EP (Renew?). They still get nothing like the vote required to implement it without the support of one of the two major political blocks with in the EP... admittedly, I've no idea how likely/unlikely that is.

So, as I understand it, there's two checks in place.. the nation would have to agree to it in the Council, and the nations MEP's (usually of differing political leanings) would have to contribute their votes in parliament too. It sounds like it would only happen if it's what everybody (enough of the right people) wanted... and if a nation was still against abandoning unanimity... they can always leave and 'Take Back Control'.

My point is, how real is the risk? I understand if it's real at all, then it's a definite risk, but again, looking inward, we have a PM who's sacked elected MP's, and installed people who've been voted out as MP's in a position where they can't be voted out again... we've a PM with zero intention of installing proportional representation to ensure all votes count (mostly against him), who is PM by virtue of being selected by a small bunch of people that simply buy a say in the matter, and whose party is not supported by the majority of the population.

I guess my point is... is the European Superstate simply a distraction from domestic issues of far more importance?

 

[Famine]

I don't disagree with the need to get rid of unanimity in order to get things done - but it is a fundamental shift away from the EU being a union of sovereign nation states toward being a sovereign power in its own right.

Lisbon was that step. Along with the various institutions created and the change to the majority voting system, Lisbon created the EU as a legal person.

 

[Touring Mars]

Fair enough, I can see what you are saying.

The next question would be then, what would it take for this to happen? Verhofstadt can say what he wants, but what swing does he actually have? Surely it would take a unanimous vote in the council AND a majority in parliament to get anywhere, if it was even proposed by the commission. If I'm correct in my understanding, even if Verhofstadt's opinion was shared with the rest of the MEP's in the centrist position within the EP (Renew?). They still get nothing like the vote required to implement it without the support of one of the two major political blocks with in the EP... admittedly, I've no idea how likely/unlikely that is.

So, as I understand it, there's two checks in place.. the nation would have to agree to it in the Council, and the nations MEP's (usually of differing political leanings) would have to contribute their votes in parliament too. It sounds like it would only happen if it's what everybody (enough of the right people) wanted... and if a nation was still against abandoning unanimity... they can always leave and 'Take Back Control'.

My point is, how real is the risk? I understand if it's real at all, then it's a definite risk, but again, looking inward, we have a PM who's sacked elected MP's, and installed people who've been voted out as MP's in a position where they can't be voted out again... we've a PM with zero intention of installing proportional representation to ensure all votes count (mostly against him), who is PM by virtue of being selected by a small bunch of people that simply buy a say in the matter, and whose party is not supported by the majority of the population.

I guess my point is... is the European Superstate simply a distraction from domestic issues of far more importance?

The short answer is that it is not so much a question of whether or why it happens - it is already at the stage that if full integration does not happen, the EU will implode. The fact is that the EU is already way past the point of no return, and it is no longer a question of what to do, but merely how to get it done. Unanimity, as Verhofstadt correctly points out, is the barrier that prevents the EU from doing what it has to do in order to survive - hence it has to go. If it doesn't, the EU (or at the very least, the Euro) will eventually collapse, or at best be forced into a major restructuring.

As for the somewhat paradoxical point that there would need to be unanimous agreement to scrap the unanimity rules, I don't believe that is the case. My view is that it doesn't really matter who agrees or disagrees - they either scrap unanimity and press on with full integration or radically rethink and drastically scale back the scope of the grand European project. My guess is that this latter option - favoured by Cameron and various other pro-European but anti-full integrations - is no longer a viable option. That leaves just one other possible outcome if full integration is not achieved - total collapse.

 

[baldgye]

I guess, on this special day, it's time to reflect on how the press are going about reporting on it;

The papers with no clear agenda;

Spoiler

The lefty PC-pushing rags

Spoiler

And then the only real place for journalists;

Spoiler

 

[Tired Tyres]

I guess, on this special day, it's time to reflect on how the press are going about reporting on it;

The papers with no clear agenda;

Spoiler

The lefty PC-pushing rags

Spoiler

And then the only real place for journalists;

Spoiler

What! Ozzy doesn't have long to live shocker!!!

 

[MatskiMonk]

I should be a Daily Star reader.

 

[TheCracker]

For all the union jack waving, Vera Lynn wailing jingoism that images of the White Cliffs of Dover conjure up. Along with their French counterpart, Cap Griz-Nez, they're a massive visual sign that the British Isles are very much a part of Europe.

 

[Dennisch]

@TenEightyOne @Famine

It's a bit windy.

 

[MaxAttack]

@TenEightyOne @Famine

It's a bit windy.

Ahh, the winds of change...

 

[Dennisch]

And we are building a barrier to keep you out.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Mrs. Ten is at Mappleton waving to you! No pics yet. Sadly I had to wave from my home office

 

[MaxAttack]

I am sat in the garden in Arnhem, vaguely facing England and waving goodbye backwards toward my own face.

I think the police might be on their way.

 

[baldgye]

 

[TenEightyOne]

Mrs. Ten has arrived home with Castillo de Diablo, Brie, and a nice salami for my Brexit supper.

And melton mowbray pork pies. I'm scoring those a nein.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Congratulations on a quality post.

 

[VolkswagenX]

I stopped at the man talking about leaving Europe. They are leaving the EU, not Europe.

 

[baldgye]

I stopped at the man talking about leaving Europe. They are leaving the EU, not Europe.

Given the lives those chaps have lead, I think it's fair to assume, that they meant the EU... and they weren't trying to suggest that the Island of England, Scotland and Wales was going to psychically move from the European continent...



...to give a bit of context for those not aware.. Leadbydonkeys have been campaigning against Brexit and the lies that politicians spread regarding it, by putting their lies on posters and billboards around the UK. Showing the lies for what they where. I felt that that tweet was a fitting 'end' to their campaign.

 

[TenEightyOne]

They are leaving the EU, not Europe.

The terms are interchangeable in normal conversation, people will know exactly what they mean.

 

[Danoff]

The terms are interchangeable in normal conversation, people will know exactly what they mean.

It does undermine the point a bit though right? I mean, you can still call yourself European even if you're not in the EU. You can still have camaraderie with Europe without being in the EU.

Edit:

I suppose a counter-argument would be that you could call yourself American even if you live in Canada or Mexico. But unless you're in the American Union (aka, the US), you're not "American". I'm not sure that's fair, but maybe that's how it's being seen.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Happy St. Farage day everyone.

 

[Woodybobs]

It does undermine the point a bit though right? I mean, you can still call yourself European even if you're not in the EU. You can still have camaraderie with Europe without being in the EU.

Edit:

I suppose a counter-argument would be that you could call yourself American even if you live in Canada or Mexico. But unless you're in the American Union (aka, the US), you're not "American". I'm not sure that's fair, but maybe that's how it's being seen.

People often say Europe when they mean the EU in Ireland also. Possibly it's because we're an island and don't really share the same history as continental Europe. Joining the EU is when we began to think of ourselves as European and so the two terms became interchangeable.

 

[JoeDaSnow]

Happy St. Farage day everyone.

The first of February has begun in Britain and it's also the first day there without the European Union. All hail Brexit!