• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Place yer bets looks like a second referendum is coming

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    Yes they can.

    In the similar long winded process that is like what is used at Westminster.

    They can't do private members bills though but the majority of private members bills never make law.

    Let me clarify, the EU parliament does not have the legislative initiative, only the unelected EU commission has the power to initiate new laws.

    BBC - Democracy Live - How laws are made

    They (the EU commission) are supposed to take into account the views and suggestions from many sources, individual EU citizens (in enough numbers) or the EU parliament but crucially are not compelled by law to do anything.

    EDIT: This diagram explains better:



    This EU parliament is very much the amending/approving chamber analogous to the house of Lords.

    The UK system is far from perfect but scores well on the Democracy Index, it's a pity the EU is not scored for comparison.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
    Last edited by excon; 7 September 2017, 20:18.

    Comment


      #92
      Originally posted by excon View Post
      Let me clarify, the EU parliament does not have the legislative initiative, only the unelected EU commission has the power to initiate new laws.

      BBC - Democracy Live - How laws are made

      They (the EU commission) are supposed to take into account the views and suggestions from many sources, individual EU citizens (in enough numbers) or the EU parliament but crucially are not compelled by law to do anything.

      EDIT: This diagram explains better:



      This EU parliament is very much the amending/approving chamber analogous to the house of Lords.

      The UK system is far from perfect but scores well on the Democracy Index, it's a pity the EU is not scored for comparison.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
      All irrelevant. Why do think we deal with murderous dictators who are much worse than the EU? Because it benefits us. Its called being pragmatic. There might have been a time to leave the EU but at this point in time we simply got more than we gave.
      But you lot are about to find out that truth.
      Hard Brexit now!
      #prayfornodeal

      Comment


        #93
        Originally posted by excon View Post
        Let me clarify, the EU parliament does not have the legislative initiative, only the unelected EU commission has the power to initiate new laws.

        BBC - Democracy Live - How laws are made
        You are correct only the EU commission has the power to initiate new laws, but not decide on

        The excellent diagram you've depicted clearly shows the "decide on" coming from the Council of ministers. The Commission can "initate" whatever they like but they can't make it law, only the Council of Ministers can do that.

        The other flaw in your argument is that you suggest the proposals from the European commission are generated from the European Commission themselves, however your diagram clearly contradicts what you say by the purple arrow from the European council of which National Governments are themselves members, and where legislation is "fed in", though theoretically it is true that the Commission could make stuff up.

        It is not right to suggest that the European Commission is unaccountable. It is clearly accountable to National Governments who not only feed the Commission with their poposals, but also have to "decide on" what is becomes legislation.

        If a commissioner, who as the diagram clearly shows, far from being a self-appointed demagogue, is appointed by a National Government and accountable to that National Government does propose some piece of tripe legislation, firstly he can be replaced and secondly the legislation can be refused by the council of ministers.

        The power in the EU is clearly in the hands of the heads of states and all the initiatives from the Commission can be traced back to one or more heads of states. The Olive Oil proposal that restaurants couldn't fill up their own containers for example, coming from the Italian government to protect their flourishing olive oil industry, and shot down in flames by everyone else.

        The reason I'm in favour of Brexit is that British people are in capable of understanding how the EU works as David Davis demonstrated last year. My theory is because he is, as reported by one of the members of his team, as thick as mince.

        Last edited by BlasterBates; 7 September 2017, 21:59.
        I'm alright Jack

        Comment


          #94
          Originally posted by chopper View Post
          The full on path towards full European integration (i.e. a single country called Europe, rather than 28 nations trading freely) would put that firmly into the "Cons" list.

          We cannot vote for the EU's budget (hence why EU increased its budget in 2010 whilst national governments were enforcing austerity on its populations). Whilst we don't get to vote directly for the UK's budget, the budgetary policies are part of the party manifestos at election time and if they do something rediculous, we get to vote with our pencils on election day.

          We don't get that with the EU. The MEPs sitting in the European Parliament are an illusion of democracy.
          No they are not.

          Why do you people invent thing in order to justify your opinion.

          Look, you're in IT, you must be able to function in your day job, just do that.

          Take the evidence, then form an opinion.
          If the evidence changes, change your opinion.

          Have strong opinions, but weakly held.

          Comment


            #95
            Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post

            The reason I'm in favour of Brexit is that British people are in capable of understanding how the EU works as David Davis demonstrated last year. My theory is because he is, as reported by one of the members of his team, as thick as mince.

            That's interesting.
            That's really interesting.


            I do not understand the EU.

            There are many, many things that I do not understand.
            In fact, most "things" to me are a mystery.

            I don't want to understand the EU.
            It is too large a subject for which I have little interest and if I did take the time to study it then there
            would be no time for anything else.

            A bit like my pension. I check the performance every six months and leave it to someone else.

            With Brexit, I went with the Northern Ireland issue and voted no.
            That was 50% it.

            I also checked the financial aspect and went with the consensus,
            They are all report the same projections up to 2030, apart from the "Economists for Brexit"

            So that's All banks that have reported anything, HM Treasury, OECD, CBI, PwC, WTO, IFS and FTA

            I read the IFS summary here, which pulls in most of the others also.

            https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8296

            I also read two bank reports, HSBC and City Bank.

            They are all the same.

            This also backs them up:
            https://www.ft.com/content/dc402d22-...bb7f0#comments


            I was worried that the Economics for Brexit was to wildly different.
            Then I red three critiques of them, which this is the best, it's scathing.

            This Woman is very good.

            Tariffs, trade and money illusion


            Then decided:

            Ireland issue: Definitely No.
            Economics: Definitely No.
            Country: No
            Me: No

            I took the evidence and make an opinion on that.
            I don't understand it (apart from Ireland) but I don't think I have too.

            That's why it is annoying to hear people say that they do not understand it, so it's no.

            It is not possible to understand everything, you go with evidence.
            The same as in IT.

            Based on the above evidence, I have concluded that it's best for me to have an EU passport, so that's what I will start doing in 2019, via Dublin and then Germany.

            It's not the issue that I earn more than lots of other people in the UK that will save me financially.
            It's the problem that in relative terms, over the lifespan of the rest of my working life that amount that I earn will be continually eroded when compared to the main countries in the EU.

            I can't fight that, because it's logical.
            I can disagree with it and not leave, that's a valid choice.
            However, I can't say that I don't believe it because I don't understand it is silly.

            I don't understand how car engines work, but I still use one in my car because the evidence says that they work.

            The rule for life is: Strong opinions, weakly held

            Incidentally, as a tech conference in Scotland, Google said that Europe used to be "London and Berlin" but now it's "Berlin and Frankfurt"

            That is the field of travel. You would do well to take notice.

            p.s. I am going to vote for anyone that offers a second referendum, but Summer next year the majority will want to stay in the EU.

            Remember: Strong opinions, weakly held

            Your theory is logical, but flawed.

            re-asses, for your sake alone & Northern Ireland if nothing else.

            Comment


              #96
              UK Government plan, from a leak and Twitter posts:


              I will add this because it maybe useful for the future:
              The plan the government is working towards is to walk away after the German elections.

              I saw an outline of the plan in March and nothing has changed my mind as they seem to be following it.


              On their position, the government have taken legal advice that they can walk away from the single market and still trade tariff free. It's complicated and I don't understand it, but...

              The legal advice concerns international treaties and sovereignty and is based on Yugoslavia.

              When that country broke into two, it still used it's current trade agreements.

              I think that the government thinks this.

              Because, well you leave the single market and the UK is immediately stuffed.
              But, they think that the UK can still trade.

              However, within Twitter land there are some very clever trade lawyers and they have rubbished it.

              The government used the example of: This is due to Yugoslavia being a single sovereignty entity.

              However, the EU is not a single sovereignty entity, it consists of countries that are still sovereignty.
              i.e. The UK did not ask the EU to leave. It served notice.

              So...
              There is a cliff edge that the government is not aware of, that will cause immediate short term damage as well as long term damage.

              Just making you aware.

              Good luck.

              Comment


                #97
                Originally posted by worzelGummidge View Post
                That's interesting.
                That's really interesting.


                I do not understand the EU.

                There are many, many things that I do not understand.
                In fact, most "things" to me are a mystery.

                I don't want to understand the EU.
                It is too large a subject for which I have little interest and if I did take the time to study it then there
                would be no time for anything else.

                A bit like my pension. I check the performance every six months and leave it to someone else.

                With Brexit, I went with the Northern Ireland issue and voted no.
                That was 50% it.

                I also checked the financial aspect and went with the consensus,
                They are all report the same projections up to 2030, apart from the "Economists for Brexit"

                So that's All banks that have reported anything, HM Treasury, OECD, CBI, PwC, WTO, IFS and FTA

                I read the IFS summary here, which pulls in most of the others also.

                https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8296

                I also read two bank reports, HSBC and City Bank.

                They are all the same.

                This also backs them up:
                https://www.ft.com/content/dc402d22-...bb7f0#comments


                I was worried that the Economics for Brexit was to wildly different.
                Then I red three critiques of them, which this is the best, it's scathing.

                This Woman is very good.

                Tariffs, trade and money illusion


                Then decided:

                Ireland issue: Definitely No.
                Economics: Definitely No.
                Country: No
                Me: No

                I took the evidence and make an opinion on that.
                I don't understand it (apart from Ireland) but I don't think I have too.

                That's why it is annoying to hear people say that they do not understand it, so it's no.

                It is not possible to understand everything, you go with evidence.
                The same as in IT.

                Based on the above evidence, I have concluded that it's best for me to have an EU passport, so that's what I will start doing in 2019, via Dublin and then Germany.

                It's not the issue that I earn more than lots of other people in the UK that will save me financially.
                It's the problem that in relative terms, over the lifespan of the rest of my working life that amount that I earn will be continually eroded when compared to the main countries in the EU.

                I can't fight that, because it's logical.
                I can disagree with it and not leave, that's a valid choice.
                However, I can't say that I don't believe it because I don't understand it is silly.

                I don't understand how car engines work, but I still use one in my car because the evidence says that they work.

                The rule for life is: Strong opinions, weakly held

                Incidentally, as a tech conference in Scotland, Google said that Europe used to be "London and Berlin" but now it's "Berlin and Frankfurt"

                That is the field of travel. You would do well to take notice.

                p.s. I am going to vote for anyone that offers a second referendum, but Summer next year the majority will want to stay in the EU.

                Remember: Strong opinions, weakly held

                Your theory is logical, but flawed.

                re-asses, for your sake alone & Northern Ireland if nothing else.
                How will you get an ‘EU’ passport via Dublin and Germany?

                You can’t combine residence in different states towards PR so it’s either/or.

                Five years in Ireland or eight years in Germany.

                Comment


                  #98
                  Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
                  You are correct only the EU commission has the power to initiate new laws, but not decide on

                  The excellent diagram you've depicted clearly shows the "decide on" coming from the Council of ministers. The Commission can "initate" whatever they like but they can't make it law, only the Council of Ministers can do that.

                  The other flaw in your argument is that you suggest the proposals from the European commission are generated from the European Commission themselves, however your diagram clearly contradicts what you say by the purple arrow from the European council of which National Governments are themselves members, and where legislation is "fed in", though theoretically it is true that the Commission could make stuff up.

                  It is not right to suggest that the European Commission is unaccountable. It is clearly accountable to National Governments who not only feed the Commission with their poposals, but also have to "decide on" what is becomes legislation.

                  If a commissioner, who as the diagram clearly shows, far from being a self-appointed demagogue, is appointed by a National Government and accountable to that National Government does propose some piece of tripe legislation, firstly he can be replaced and secondly the legislation can be refused by the council of ministers.

                  The power in the EU is clearly in the hands of the heads of states and all the initiatives from the Commission can be traced back to one or more heads of states. The Olive Oil proposal that restaurants couldn't fill up their own containers for example, coming from the Italian government to protect their flourishing olive oil industry, and shot down in flames by everyone else.

                  The reason I'm in favour of Brexit is that British people are in capable of understanding how the EU works as David Davis demonstrated last year. My theory is because he is, as reported by one of the members of his team, as thick as mince.

                  If MEPs had more power, the simpletons would whine about a super state. What we have is the nation states preserving power for themselves with a limited role for the directly elected parliament.

                  Comment


                    #99
                    Originally posted by stek View Post
                    How will you get an ‘EU’ passport via Dublin and Germany?

                    You can’t combine residence in different states towards PR so it’s either/or.

                    Five years in Ireland or eight years in Germany.
                    Maybe he has an Irish grandparent.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
                      Maybe he has an Irish grandparent.
                      Then why the Germany bit?

                      Even a great grandparent will do, provided the non-Ireland births had been entered in the Foreign Births Register, and AIUI that can go ad Infinitum.

                      But who’d have time to do that when there’s no potatoes, the English burning the roof off your cottage and stealing the teeth from your grandmothers mouth so she can’t play the tin whistle anymore.

                      They took all the peat, they stole the McGanns, I hate the English bejesus...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X