Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[Ambrosia]

No, having a Parliament is absolutely necessary as a free trade zone wouldn't work without someone setting rules and regulations and given that each country wants representation in that body and a democratic approach then a Parliament works well.

A system without a Parliament would be exactly the kind of undemocratic shady rule setting system that those who oppose the EU on ideological grounds pretend it currently is.

I agree. there should be a parliament.

Where I disagree is that I think that said parliament should not have any more say over member states than trade regulations.

EU law should be confined to trade. If a widget meets EU standards, as agreed upon in the EU parliament, then it should get all the perks of the free trade zone. If a widget doesn't meet EU standards then it gets none of the perks and has extra taxes/duties etc to pay when it is exported to another EU member state.

EU nationals should be allowed free movement to live and work within the EU zone.

EU security agencies should work closely together and share information to improve our security.

And that should be it.

The EU sets actual law in member states prohibiting this and that, which is wrong. Each member state of the EU should be free to make any laws it so desires, if those laws prove unpopular then they'd be voted out of office and those laws changed.

that's basically the fundamental problem I have with the EU.

i) it sets EU laws
ii) the structure of the EU parliament makes it more amenable to lobbying.

 

[angrysoba]

Are you sure that the European Parliament is more amenable to lobbying than Westminster?

From what I understand the European Parliament doesn’t make laws. It can only approve or reject laws made by the European Commission. The European Commission is more of a problem because although each member state can appoint one commissioner, AFAIK, they are supposed to act independently of their nation and cannot be voted out by any electorate. That’s where the main democratic deficit occurs. As for lobbying, can you provide any evidence that it occurs at a greater extent in the EU than at the member state parliamentary level?

 

[angrysoba]

Maybe one thing this VONC did achieve is to show just how badly May would have lost the vote on her deal. Apparently even among supporters some of her MPs said they were against the deal and she ended up with 117 votes against her. If you combine that with the rest of the HoC then it shows just how humiliating the defeat would have been.

They can’t vote for the deal, “no deal” is unthinkable and “no Brexit” or referendum is politically unthinkable for MPs, the opposition won’t call a vote of no confidence in the House. The situation is insanely intractable.

 

[angrysoba]

Which is exactly why, if she kicks the can long enough they will have to either vote for this deal or vote to revoke Article 50.

I don’t think that’s how parliamentary votes work. They require voting Yes or No on a bill, not A or B.

But given that the bill is now amendabale, and given the ECJ judgement, an Amendment to the Bill that states in the result of the proposed deal being rejected then article 50 should be extended or withdrawn pending a second referendum seems at least feasible.

I literally have no idea if this is possible. Can a bill actually be written with such conditions written in? To me it sounds unlikely, but I have no knowledge about whether any terms of a bill can come into force if it is voted down. I suppose a separate bill could be proposed that offers a plan B. Hmmmm... i expect a lot of opposition to it. But worth a try.

 

[angrysoba]

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I think Russia is dismantling the EU via social media.

No, I think you're right on the money.

I think it is about as much of a conspiracy theory as the “conspiracy theory” that the Soviets used propaganda and paid useful idiots to push pro-Soviet and anti-Western/anti-capitalist views during the Cold War.

 

[jimbob]

I think it is about as much of a conspiracy theory as the “conspiracy theory” that the Soviets used propaganda and paid useful idiots to push pro-Soviet and anti-Western/anti-capitalist views during the Cold War.

Somewhere else, maybe not in this forum, someone posted this wiki link

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

with reference to the Russian strategy.

Worth a read.

ETA: Maybe, "doctrine" is a better word than "strategy"

 

[Lothian]

The EU sets actual law in member states prohibiting this and that, which is wrong. Each member state of the EU should be free to make any laws it so desires, if those laws prove unpopular then they'd be voted out of office and those laws changed.

that's basically the fundamental problem I have with the EU.

i) it sets EU laws

What does it prohibit that is so offensive to you.

 

[erwinl]

If it was the root cause, it would be. But it's not. apparently I just suck at explaining my viewpoints.

I was ambivalent on the EU up until I took a close interest in the passage of the TPD in 2016. I thought that the EU parliament was basically a larger version of our UK parliament. It isn't. It sacrifices thoroughness in the name of efficiency and as a result a lot of EU legislation is poorly drafted.

A bill that affects millions of EU residents should be fully debated in the parliament before it gets voted on. MEPs should have a good understanding of the arguments for and against something before voting, and they don't, they don't have time to do that because they have to be efficient.

I think the EU should work like this. Widget X has been tested and given the "ERS" "EuroRubberStamp" widget Y has not. It's functionally the same as X it just hasn't been tested. Widget X should get preferential treatment when it is exported to other EU countries. No tarrifs/customs duties etc etc Widget Y should not. It could still be exported and sold in other EU countries provided it was compliant with local health and safety standards, but it would be more expensive than X because it has no ERS and as such has to pay extra duties and taxes. What actually happens is the EU mandates that all widgets sold in the EU *must* have ERS. I think that is wrong. If you were a small business hand carving widgets out of local wood and through smart marketing you sold a few widgets to the niche enthusiast market but never wanted to export them elsewhere, then you have a viable business in the first kind of model.



You might want to check the figures. In most of the western world smoking prevalence has declined markedly since about 2010, and the biggest reason for that is technological.



I didn't vote on a whim. I voted because I thought at the time that leaving the EU and it's unrepresentative democracy was the long term best option, and that the pain caused by leaving it would be shorter term and manageable.

It turns out I was wrong and our present crop of politicians have fubared everything to do with Brexit and the amount of pain the country will have to endure to actually exit won't be worth it.



I'd be happy with a federal US of E as well. either go the whole hog, or just have a very strong trade agreement.

A "very strong trade agreement" in my view is free movement of EU citizens within the EU. Free movement of goods and services that have the 'ERS' and that's it. No EU parliament setting laws that apply to all member countries. A countries laws are it's own affair, so if country A wants to ban the sale of Widget X within it's borders it can do so, whether it has an ERS or not.

There are also future big problems in store for the EU (whether or not the UK leaves) when the Greece crisis mkII happens, whether that's with Greece or Spain, or Ireland or Italy. All of those economies aren't that strong right now and at present the EU does't control both monetary and fiscal policy for EU member states. which is a long term recipe for disaster.

What might happen when Merkel goes as German leader? Germany has been strong and stable for years and is one of the main foundations of the EU. If they change their views on the EU in a few years time how will it change then?

Right now the EU is trending towards becoming more complicated more "efficient" and less representative. And the EU is too tightly interwoven for a trade agreement and not tightly enough to withstand long term potential problems, sort of a no mans land of integration.

HighlightedThe reason for the 'ERS' (I like the term) is that buyers know that the widget has been tested.

Seen from the buyers perspective.
What would be the difference between a non tested widget Y (functionally the same as tested and ERS'ed widget X) and a non tested, but also dangerous widget Z?
We all know what salesmen are like. Every widget they sell is the best in the world, even if it happens to be a widget Z.

That is one of the reasons for the 'ERS'. To protect the consumers.

 

[TheSupermeerkat]

Meanwhile, over in Brussels they get on with some more serious stuff...BRUSSELS – The European Parliament on Wednesday approved an accord with Japan that has been dubbed the world’s biggest trade deal, covering economies that represent a third of the world’s GDP.

However, the "competition" article in the deal states that both parties (Japan and the EU) can not negotiate trade deals that could possibly have an economic disadvantage to the other party. And if a trade deal is negotiated with a third country that could possibly have an economic disadvantage to the other party, the other party is involced in the negotiation, and has a veto right.

So Japan negotiating with the UK automatically involves the EU, and the EU has a veto on the deal.

Any leavers care to comment?

 

[angrysoba]

Meanwhile, over in Brussels they get on with some more serious stuff...BRUSSELS – The European Parliament on Wednesday approved an accord with Japan that has been dubbed the world’s biggest trade deal, covering economies that represent a third of the world’s GDP.

However, the "competition" article in the deal states that both parties (Japan and the EU) can not negotiate trade deals that could possibly have an economic disadvantage to the other party. And if a trade deal is negotiated with a third country that could possibly have an economic disadvantage to the other party, the other party is involced in the negotiation, and has a veto right.

So Japan negotiating with the UK automatically involves the EU, and the EU has a veto on the deal.

Any leavers care to comment?

I notice there were about a hundred MEPs that voted against the deal. Are most of them from the UK?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You can drive anywhere in the EU with any valid EU licence. If you are resident in a country for a year, you need to transfer your licence to that country. No test is needed. If you go to another one, same story. It's not exactly a hardship.

Agreed, it's not as if it was something really serious like the driving license being the wrong colour.

Dave

 

[Tolls]

That is one of the reasons for the 'ERS'. To protect the consumers.

And it (here) replaced the Kite Mark.
The idea that the Uk (which generally had higher standards for a lot of things than europe) would not have an almost identical requirement beggars belief.

The idea that you would have a standard and then allow non-compliant goods onto the market is naive.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I agree. there should be a parliament.

Where I disagree is that I think that said parliament should not have any more say over member states than trade regulations.

EU law should be confined to trade. If a widget meets EU standards, as agreed upon in the EU parliament, then it should get all the perks of the free trade zone. If a widget doesn't meet EU standards then it gets none of the perks and has extra taxes/duties etc to pay when it is exported to another EU member state.

EU nationals should be allowed free movement to live and work within the EU zone.

EU security agencies should work closely together and share information to improve our security.

And that should be it.

The EU sets actual law in member states prohibiting this and that, which is wrong. Each member state of the EU should be free to make any laws it so desires, if those laws prove unpopular then they'd be voted out of office and those laws changed.

that's basically the fundamental problem I have with the EU.

i) it sets EU laws
ii) the structure of the EU parliament makes it more amenable to lobbying.

You are proposing that each country keep their own national standards for domestic product and have to comply with a different set of international standards for export products. Can you see why this would pose issues for manufacturers, countries and the EU?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt an outline some of the reasons why this is a bad idea.

1. First of all maintaining national standards are a hugely time consuming and expensive task. You would be asking countries to duplicate this effort to maintain two sets. This would repeated across more than two dozen countries. A hugely wasteful enterprise

2. It would be a nightmare to police and would mean having to have customs checks at the borders to ensure that all the products passing through borders complied with the ERS system. Also would you require 3rd country product to meet the ERS or just the local national standard?

3. It would create huge barriers to trade for countries trying to export if all export product required to be held to a higher standard of compliance than local product.

4. It would be politically and socially unacceptable I think to allow say Bulgarians to be members of the EU and yet sell dangerous products to their consumers. It would effectively create multiple tiers of member and EU citizen.

5. It would require manufacturers to have to multiple product lines and possibly manufacturing in multiple locations in order to be able to compete in certain markets.

In other words what you are proposing is a hugely inefficient mess of unnecessarily complicated differences across the continent. More or less what we had before but with a new layer of regulation added. And for what? To allow a few mom and pop businesses to sell crap to their local consumers that doesn't meet the required international standards?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Meanwhile, over in Brussels they get on with some more serious stuff...BRUSSELS – The European Parliament on Wednesday approved an accord with Japan that has been dubbed the world’s biggest trade deal, covering economies that represent a third of the world’s GDP.

However, the "competition" article in the deal states that both parties (Japan and the EU) can not negotiate trade deals that could possibly have an economic disadvantage to the other party. And if a trade deal is negotiated with a third country that could possibly have an economic disadvantage to the other party, the other party is involced in the negotiation, and has a veto right.

So Japan negotiating with the UK automatically involves the EU, and the EU has a veto on the deal.

Any leavers care to comment?

That's hugely interesting. More to the point it means Japan now has a veto on the UK's future trade arrangement with the EU?

One thing I never understood is the Leaver complaint that 'most of the growth is outside the EU we should be trading with the rest of the world' - we have access to FTAs with huge swathes of the world thanks to the EU and this list is being added to all the time. Leaving the EU puts us back to square one and loses us access to Korea, Japan and other big markets and sends us to the back of the line on negotiations on others that were ongoing.

 

[TheSupermeerkat]

I notice there were about a hundred MEPs that voted against the deal. Are most of them from the UK?

I don't know.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Where I disagree is that I think that said parliament should not have any more say over member states than trade regulations.

Can you give some example where EU law goes to far?

EU law should be confined to trade. If a widget meets EU standards, as agreed upon in the EU parliament, then it should get all the perks of the free trade zone. If a widget doesn't meet EU standards then it gets none of the perks and has extra taxes/duties etc to pay when it is exported to another EU member state.

Oh come on. Think this through. It makes no sense.

 

[Tolls]

As for the "(EU)parliament should not have any more say over member states than trade regulations". What classes as "trade regulation"?

If a country is undercutting another one via shoddy labour laws, or VAT cheats, or tax dodges, surely that classes as "trade regulation".

 

[angrysoba]

Can you give some example where EU law goes to far?
.

Bendy bananas! Also, something about carrots having to be classed as fruit! It’s an outrage!

 

[angrysoba]

I don't know.

To be honest, there is an anti-EU bloc of parties that consistently vote against everything in the European Parliament including UKIP and a few fascist parties.

 

[BobTheCoward]

As for the "(EU)parliament should not have any more say over member states than trade regulations". What classes as "trade regulation"?

If a country is undercutting another one via shoddy labour laws, or VAT cheats, or tax dodges, surely that classes as "trade regulation".

I would say the opposite.