Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[GnaGnaMan]

I don't think that is true, GnaGnaMan. In pursuit of "economic" outcomes, the EU has increasingly imposed itself on UK domestic law. And if you make the laws of a country, then you effectively control it politically.

As a trivial example, but one that is fresh in my mind, all EU countries must stop producing Halogen bulbs, and their citizens can ONLY have LED bulbs in future.

By Law !

Are you arguing against environmental/safety/etc standards in general or is this just about that single issue?

If it's just about this single issue: Why? Why should energy efficency be different from issues like vehicle safety, lead content, etc?

If you are against environmental or safety standards in general: All developed countries have them. Having joint standards is part of what the common market is about and certainly what the UK signed up to. Having joint standards eases trade and also prevents a race to the bottom.

Now, as it happens, I think the switch to LED bulbs is a good thing. But I question why it should be imposed BY LAW, rather than allowing market forces to gradually persuade people to make the switch.

Because that doesn't work. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative

But the EU has decided that it must happen, and so soon it will be a criminal offense to manufacture and sell Filament or Halogen bulbs. You could be fined - or even imprisoned - for doing so.

Do you have a source for that?

 

[Amazer]

Well, that opens a real can of worms, doesn't it ?
You see, in principle , the UK can create an "open border".. at least on the UK side of things. Hence the Good Friday agreement can remain in force. SO FAR AS THE UK IS CONCERNED.

Sure the UK could have an open border with the RoI, if it choose to do this. It would also mean that it would have to have open borders (for goods and services) for every other WTO-member. Else the UK would be discriminating against other members, something they surely wouldn't approve of.

However, from the Eire side of things, their borders are controlled by the EU in Brussels, not the Eire government in the Dail.

No, it would be the Irish government that controls the border, while it subscribes to the EU rules.

So it would be the EU that orders Eire to abandon the Good Friday agreement. Along with many other Eire/UK agreements. It would also be the EU that puts Eire in an economic straight-jacket by demanding border controls on all trade between Eire and the UK. Including vehicles exporting goods to the EU via the UK.

While this simple view might appeal to you... it has no connection with reality whatsoever. But I guess it makes you feel better...

In the event of a no-deal Brexit, one wonders how long it would be before there is a clamor among Irish businessmen - and citizens - to leave the EU, and join in a trade agreement with the UK ?

Probably a lot longer than you think.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

In the event of a no-deal Brexit, one wonders how long it would be before there is a clamor among Irish businessmen - and citizens - to leave the EU, and join in a trade agreement with the UK ?

How long would it take for UK citizens to clamor for rejoining the EU?

 

[fagin]

How long would it take for UK citizens to clamor for rejoining the EU?

About 18 months ago. The sensible ones anyway.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...
In the event of a no-deal Brexit, one wonders how long it would be before there is a clamor among Irish businessmen - and citizens - to leave the EU, and join in a trade agreement with the UK ?

I presume somewhere there is an opinion poll that's put the question to Irish voters. In an era when Trump and Brexit can be voted for, I guess it would be presumptuous just to assume the answer was a resounding "hell, no". Best to check.

 

[Parsman]

Already happening. The Observer today says 100 "Leave" constituencies have changed to "Remain". No one except extreme Brexiteers and little Englanders still think this is a good idea.

 

[Lplus]

What I well realise is that at no point during our EU membership has the process by which the EU produces legislation - a process in which the UK fully participates - has anything been made law which I regard as detrimental to my, or my country's, interests.

That's nice for you. Still there's aways the future - who knows what the EU might come up with...

So even if there was no downside to leaving the EU I would question the sense of leaving it because of something it might do but has never done in over 40 years. Given the considerable downside of leaving, it makes no sense whatsoever.

So if you did believe it would happen, would you still consider it made no sense? Do you discount the pronouncements of the likes of J-C Juncker as fabrications?

But maybe you know better. So go on, give me an example of EU legislation which is so pernicious that reversing it would be worth, to give an example of just one of the downsides, giving up my current freedom to live and work anywhere in 28 countries.

A pointless question. I don't know what your priorities are, apart from the desire to travel to 27 other capital cities without having to ask first, and you clearly don't agree with my priorities, but there you go.

As far as I know you might be quite happy if the EU abolished nations completely - as long as you could travel to 27 capital cities etc, etc.

Oh, wait - make that 27 subsidiary administration centres....

 

[Strawberry]

Well, that opens a real can of worms, doesn't it ?
You see, in principle , the UK can create an "open border".. at least on the UK side of things. Hence the Good Friday agreement can remain in force. SO FAR AS THE UK IS CONCERNED.

However, from the Eire side of things, their borders are controlled by the EU in Brussels, not the Eire government in the Dail.

So it would be the EU that orders Eire to abandon the Good Friday agreement. Along with many other Eire/UK agreements. It would also be the EU that puts Eire in an economic straight-jacket by demanding border controls on all trade between Eire and the UK. Including vehicles exporting goods to the EU via the UK.

In the event of a no-deal Brexit, one wonders how long it would be before there is a clamor among Irish businessmen - and citizens - to leave the EU, and join in a trade agreement with the UK ?

Under the rules of the WTO/WCO, if the UK and Ireland are not in a customs union together there must be customs controls at BOTH sides of the border. The Brexit fantasy of leaving their side of the border open and forcing Ireland to police theirs is about as realistic as every other fantasy Brexiters have sold to their gullible followers.

As for your final paragraph, you can stop wondering - it will happen never. The EU single market is much more important to Ireland's economy than the UK.

Btw, do you commonly refer to Germany as Deutschland? I'm just wondering why you keep typing Ireland's name in the Irish language.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Do you discount the pronouncements of the likes of J-C Juncker as fabrications?

You keep going back to pronouncements by Juncker. Apparently some quotes have a special significance for you. You should explain more about that. I think no one else here sees what you see.

 

[Lplus]

Actually its precisely the point, the EU agreeing to legislation that the UK supported means that this so called example of the EU imposing its will on the the UK is, as with pretty much all the others, nothing of the sort.

It was an example of EU law becoming UK law. If the UK disagreed it would still become UK law. That was the point of the example - that it doesn't matter what the UK wants, EU law can be forced upon the UK.

As I'm sure you realise....

 

[Lplus]

You keep going back to pronouncements by Juncker. Apparently some quotes have a special significance for you. You should explain more about that.

Don't they have any significance for you? They are after all the pronouncements of the president of the EC - I had been assuming you and those advocating remaining the the EU read the statements of the head of the organisation you think the UK should subsume itself into...

I think no one else here sees what you see.

And I think they do, but the remainers approve...

 

[Strawberry]

Don't they have any significance for you? They are after all the pronouncements of the president of the EC - I had been assuming you and those advocating remaining the the EU read the statements of the head of the organisation you think the UK should subsume itself into...


And I think they do, but the remainers approve...

Its the Council of Ministers that controls the direction of the EU, not the Commission. Unless J-C Juncker's pronouncements have the backing of 27 EU governments they don't fly.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Don't they have any significance for you? They are after all the pronouncements of the president of the EC - I had been assuming you and those advocating remaining the the EU read the statements of the head of the organisation you think the UK should subsume itself into...

And I think they do, but the remainers approve...

Why do you avoid giving an answer?

 

[Pixel42]

That's nice for you. Still there's aways the future - who knows what the EU might come up with...

Who knows what a future UK government might come up with, especially after the country has alienated its nearest neighbours and is being turned into a combination tax haven and sweatshop for the benefit of the 1%.

So if you did believe it would happen, would you still consider it made no sense?

I don't believe it would happen, so the question is moot.

Do you discount the pronouncements of the likes of J-C Juncker as fabrications?

Like others I am puzzled as to which pronouncements have got you so concerned. I'm not aware of any that would justify it.

A pointless question. I don't know what your priorities are, apart from the desire to travel to 27 other capital cities without having to ask first, and you clearly don't agree with my priorities, but there you go.

So no examples of detrimental EU legislation then?

As far as I know you might be quite happy if the EU abolished nations completely

I look forward to the day that humanity has abolished nations, yes.

I imagine my ancestors worried about Wessex being subsumed into England, and having laws imposed from London. There were cons, no doubt, but they were greatly outweighed by the pros, not least the cessation of all those battles with Mercia.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I remember Gaitskell the Labour party leader at the time making a speech talking about a thousand years of history which was a bit unfashionable at the time. He died unexpectedly soon after that. Then the Labour party remain people took over. There is an interesting interview with the Labour party politician Kate Hoey on the internet. She has a bit of practical experience with regard to Zimbabwe, unlike most people:

https://www.spearswms.com/kate-hoey-labour-brexiteer/

Kate Hoey: The real power in the EU lies with the unelected Commissioners. They are hand in glove with the global corporations, the neo-liberal elites and those who have no interest in listening to the needs of the ‘little people’. They are not acting in the interests of working men and women. This Referendum is about the fight back – the big establishment elites vs the people.

 

[catsmate]

Under the rules of the WTO/WCO, if the UK and Ireland are not in a customs union together there must be customs controls at BOTH sides of the border. The Brexit fantasy of leaving their side of the border open and forcing Ireland to police theirs is about as realistic as every other fantasy Brexiters have sold to their gullible followers.

As for your final paragraph, you can stop wondering - it will happen never. The EU single market is much more important to Ireland's economy than the UK.

Btw, do you commonly refer to Germany as Deutschland? I'm just wondering why you keep typing Ireland's name in the Irish language.

And without the fada...

 

[Earthborn]

It was an example of EU law becoming UK law. If the UK disagreed it would still become UK law. That was the point of the example - that it doesn't matter what the UK wants, EU law can be forced upon the UK.

As I'm sure you realise....

As I am sure you realise, EU law does not become national law unless parliament ratified it into national law. EU law cannot be forced upon the UK, at least not as long as it is part of the EU. (Outside of it, it will likely still have to follow EU law in many ways if it wants to continue trade, just have no say in what that law might be).

UK parliament has just been rubberstamping everything that come from the EU with barely any debate, then when it proves unpopular started complaining about how it was "forced" upon them.

 

[Lplus]

As I am sure you realise, EU law does not become national law unless parliament ratified it into national law. EU law cannot be forced upon the UK, at least not as long as it is part of the EU. (Outside of it, it will likely still have to follow EU law in many ways if it wants to continue trade, just have no say in what that law might be).

UK parliament has just been rubberstamping everything that come from the EU with barely any debate, then when it proves unpopular started complaining about how it was "forced" upon them.

Hmmm, not sure I agree with you...
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/applying-eu-law_en

 

[Degeneve]

Don't they have any significance for you? They are after all the pronouncements of the president of the EC

Don't you even have basic knowledge of the EU institutions?

As a matter of fact there is no such position as President of the EU (and not EC, by the way). Or if there is one, it is rather Donald Tusk, President of the EU Council, rather than Jean-Claude Juncker who, as President of the EU Commission, can only enforce the regulations adopted by the EU Council and the EU Parlement.

 

[Lplus]

Its the Council of Ministers that controls the direction of the EU, not the Commission. Unless J-C Juncker's pronouncements have the backing of 27 EU governments they don't fly.

Perhaps they should get a grip on him then

Why do you avoid giving an answer?

I did, but you don't like it because it isn't a series of Aunt Sallys for you to try to knock down.

Who knows what a future UK government might come up with, especially after the country has alienated its nearest neighbours and is being turned into a combination tax haven and sweatshop for the benefit of the 1%.

the first part of that sentence is true - the rest of it smacks of predjudice.

Like others I am puzzled as to which pronouncements have got you so concerned. I'm not aware of any that would justify it.

That is simply a statement that you agree with them. Fair enough.

So no examples of detrimental EU legislation then?

You asked for examples that you would find detrimental. I can't answer that.

I look forward to the day that humanity has abolished nations, yes.

I imagine my ancestors worried about Wessex being subsumed into England, and having laws imposed from London. There were cons, no doubt, but they were greatly outweighed by the pros, not least the cessation of all those battles with Mercia.

Looks like Wessex were the ones doing the subsuming....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex