Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Well, I mentioned a few posts back the 'democratic deficit' of the EU. I think that needs to be addressed but without breaking the EU and building EU 2.0 I don't see how that can be entirely resolved. It's a tough situation because now the member-states are all pretty much fused at the hip, and the looming threat of Russia sure is a good incentive to bit one's lips and just endure the EU's problems because the alternative is probably much worse.
Click to expand...

Can you be specific about what democratic deficit is the issue?
 
Belz... said:
And YET you find people disagreeing on facts all the time. That means that both sides think they have the facts on their side. In a lot of cases it's either trivial or at least relatively easy to know which is correct. Sometimes it's a lot more complicated.
Click to expand...

Yes two people can disagree on say how many people were at Trump's inauguration but we know that one of them won't be reasonable.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
So we are in agreement then that UKBA can deny EU citizens entry to the UK?

I should damn well hope there were good reasons (you've obviously checked, so i'll trust your judgement) to deny them entry. Since that's what I originally stated and was what Belz was asking about.

The idea that we should be able to deny people entry for no good reason would seem to be firmly in the 'little bit racist' camp.
Click to expand...
You were the one that posted "UK Border Agency can deny you entry to the country entirely at their discretion as far as I know." ...and you've now admitted that you didn't know! The UKBA can only deny entry when they have very good reasons and certainly not "entirely at their discretion."
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Well it just seems odd that if you are arguing that something is a problem worthy of consideration that you have to go straight to an unlikely hypothetical which is actually at odds with what we see happening rather than actual examples of the problem at hand.
Click to expand...

Well sue me, I was trying to find a way to illustrate what I was saying with an example. Next time I'll just go with the general idea.

And yet Brexiteers wouldn't have it.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't help that.

Can you be specific about what democratic deficit is the issue?
Click to expand...

Well you can look up the term to get more info, but I'm concerned by the back-assward way in which laws are crafted and vetted in the EU, compared to the US or a parliamentary system. I think laws should be written by elected officials.

Yes two people can disagree on say how many people were at Trump's inauguration but we know that one of them won't be reasonable.
Click to expand...

Did you deliberately ignore the last part of my post? It seems odd that you'd pick an example that is unreasonable in order to counter the general idea.
 
Last edited:
Can't see that it makes a whole lot of difference if the legislation is drafted correctly. The important part is what is implemented, and by whom.

Perhaps laws drafted by 'experts' and debated and amended/approved by elected officials, are not that crazy.

As a matter of interest, most laws in the UK are drafted by the relevant department, then debated by committee before being voted on by parliament. So the EU method is not really foreign.

Probably avoids a lot of convoluted laws with a a myriad 'additions' and pork barrel stuff they seem to get in the USA.
 
ceptimus said:
Did you read the main point, number 1, before reading the vague bolded exceptions bit in point 3?

Try to prevent free movement from an EU country unless you can prove the individual is a criminal, terrorist, or carrying some infectious disease, and you'll find yourself in a European court.
Click to expand...

Not quite that simple. We moved from the UK to Greece, though we were verging on retirement and had no jobs to go to. We were entitled to stay here and buy a house here, but it was more complicated than that.

To get a residence permit we had to demonstrate that we had medical cover and adequate money in the bank, so as not to be a drain on the state. It was a few years later when MrsB hit retirement age that the reciprocal EU S1 system kicked in and she got automatic Greek NHS cover, and I got in too as her spouse.

Freedom of movement within the EU is a nice concept but much misunderstood. Your EHIC medical card, for example, only covers emergency treatment and has a limited life, as in our case. Renewing it requires proof of residency in your home country, unless you're a pensioner (then you might need it if you go back to visit your home country).
 
fagin said:
Can't see that it makes a whole lot of difference if the legislation is drafted correctly. The important part is what is implemented, and by whom.
Click to expand...

My issue is that the people drafting the laws are unelected, so the population has essentially little power to directly influence laws. They can only block them.

Perhaps laws drafted by 'experts' and debated and amended/approved by elected officials, are not that crazy.
Click to expand...

It's not crazy. I just prefer it the other way around.

As a matter of interest, most laws in the UK are drafted by the relevant department, then debated by committee before being voted on by parliament. So the EU method is not really foreign.

Probably avoids a lot of convoluted laws with a a myriad 'additions' and pork barrel stuff they seem to get in the USA.
Click to expand...

Those are fair points.
 
ceptimus said:
You were the one that posted "UK Border Agency can deny you entry to the country entirely at their discretion as far as I know." ...and you've now admitted that you didn't know! The UKBA can only deny entry when they have very good reasons and certainly not "entirely at their discretion."
Click to expand...

Yes, the UKBA can deny you entry if they believe there is good reason to do so. The judgement on whether there is good reason to do so is at their discretion.

And no they don't have to be criminals. In fact as you yourself posted a criminal record alone isn't considered grounds to exclude someone. The grounds are “public policy, public health or public security”.

And of course as I said there are avenues to appeal that denial of entry. but you won't be in the country while you pursue them because you will have been denied entry.

You might remember that your UKIP pals were very annoyed that such powers were used in the case of Geert Wilders - oddly enough since floppy haired wankers is one area where the UK really has no need to import from the EU.
 
Belz... said:
Well you can look up the term to get more info, but I'm concerned by the back-assward way in which laws are crafted and vetted in the EU, compared to the US or a parliamentary system. I think laws should be written by elected officials.
Click to expand...

Oh I was aware of the term but whenever its raised the arguments are either incorrect or would no different/better in the UK post Brexit.

Laws are not typically written by elected officials in the UK either and neither Cabinet nor PM are elected by the people.

I mean its fine to point out that the EU system is not perfect but it's a joke to say that Brexit is somehow justified on the back of that when we are now seeing a government who scraped in thanks to FPTP voting and being propped up by a minor party of bigots they bought arguing amongst itself on which public schoolboy should get to decide what the policy should be on a decision made on the back of lies printed on a bus and told barefaced on national TV by people who would rather resign that face the reality of what they persuaded people to agree to all the time ignoring the reality that their policies are unworkable and vehemently denying the right of people to vote on whether to go ahead with any of this, or of devolved nations to decide their own futures.

The UK is a walking talking democratic deficit.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
And Cameron promised to do so, but despite the impetus of his party shedding damaging numbers of voters to UKIP, he never came close to his declared target, which reinforced the Leaver message that he couldn't because of the EU.

I frankly don't understand why that was. Perhaps he really didn't believe people would be daft enough to vote to leave.
Click to expand...

He failed mainly because the targets were a nonsense that ignored the real demand for unskilled labour in several industries and the shortages of skilled labour in others. Cameron's issue was that he was so panicked that he kept trying to pander to the UKIP voters to win them back rather than tackle the misconceptions that fuelled their demands
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Oh I was aware of the term but whenever its raised the arguments are either incorrect or would no different/better in the UK post Brexit.

Laws are not typically written by elected officials in the UK either and neither Cabinet nor PM are elected by the people.

I mean its fine to point out that the EU system is not perfect but it's a joke to say that Brexit is somehow justified on the back of that when we are now seeing a government who scraped in thanks to FPTP voting and being propped up by a minor party of bigots they bought arguing amongst itself on which public schoolboy should get to decide what the policy should be on a decision made on the back of lies printed on a bus and told barefaced on national TV by people who would rather resign that face the reality of what they persuaded people to agree to all the time ignoring the reality that their policies are unworkable and vehemently denying the right of people to vote on whether to go ahead with any of this, or of devolved nations to decide their own futures.

The UK is a walking talking democratic deficit.
Click to expand...

That's all very fair. I just don't know that the EU can change its system without, you know, shutting down the EU and starting over under a new name.
 
Belz... said:
Well, I mentioned a few posts back the 'democratic deficit' of the EU. I think that needs to be addressed but without breaking the EU and building EU 2.0 I don't see how that can be entirely resolved. It's a tough situation because now the member-states are all pretty much fused at the hip, and the looming threat of Russia sure is a good incentive to bit one's lips and just endure the EU's problems because the alternative is probably much worse.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly there is quite a specific reason for the 'democratic deficit' of the EU. It had something to do with a very real loss of sovereignity of national parliaments when there is an EU parliament and an elected EU government that have law-making powers like national parliaments/governments have.

Can you imagine the howls of outrage concerning loss of sovereignity and the like... coming from the likes of Nigel Farage... if they had gone down that route?
 
I have to say that I am impressed by the ability of the Brexiteers to be outraged about the humiliation heaped on May while completely ignoring everything that was said by UK ministers in the lead-up to the conference.

Raabs threat to withhold the payment in case of a no-deal, with the comment of May that it was either her Chequers deal or no-deal. Plus Gove's statement that the Chequers deal was just a temporary measure, that it could be easily altered by any future PM. They didn't for a minute think that there might be a little backlash?
 
ceptimus said:
So only about one thousand people per year - about three people each day - stopped in total at all UK ports of entry. That's around one person in every 20,000 EU nationals entering the UK - and for each of those one in twenty thousand there were good reasons for denying their entry - they were most often either criminals or terrorists.

Note that just having a criminal record isn't sufficient reason to deny entry - if someone has committed a crime but already been punished for it, then they still have the right to enter.
Click to expand...

So just like the scots and the welsh and the irish. Logically, they should all be barred from immigration as well.

Along with the notorious EU member, Bangladesh.
 
Belz... said:
That's all very fair. I just don't know that the EU can change its system without, you know, shutting down the EU and starting over under a new name.
Click to expand...

as far as supra national bodies go the EU is pretty democratic. is there a better example that it could model itself on?
 
Belz... said:
That's all very fair. I just don't know that the EU can change its system without, you know, shutting down the EU and starting over under a new name.
Click to expand...

Frankly it's nonsense anyway based on premise that doesn't have much in common with reality. There were through out the history changes. No shut down was ever necessary. And that assumes that changes are necessary. Definitely not given.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom