Who is fed up of Brexit?

Another thing that I find rather disconcerting, even revolting, is that the very leavers that can’t defend their viewpoint and in no rational way explain why they think Brexit is a good idea, seem to feel childish glee at the prospect of the harm it will cause to the UK and many of its people.

 

Gonna try to put you out of your misery Mate !
you keep asking for answers nobody can give , People have given you reasons and you have rubbished them or stated that they are irrelevant or stupid which they are ( To you ) your rational is not someone else's ! you have to accept people want to leave even if you don't , Be a good Idea if you stopped calling people names because they have a different viewpoint It really doesn't make you right and them wrong
Don't bother replying to me because I really dont give a fuck for your argument just trying to help that's all and you don't have to listen


I am fed up with brexit (to answer the OP )

 

How do you decide if something is a good idea or a bad idea?

For me a rule of thumb in a discussion is if a person’s ideas can stand up to scrutiny, to me if an idea doesn’t stand up well to criticism, I change it and see if it can but if it can’t I drop it.

I mean if someone is asked questions about their ideas and they can’t answer them are those ideas good one?

And if the give reasons for holding those views fall apart under scrutiny are they good reasons?

Basically you can tell if something is a good idea or not by how well it can be defended from criticism.

And it seems to me that any rational and reasonable person would begin to question their viewpoint if they discovered they couldn’t defend them from criticism.

 

The veil will be at it's thinnest - and I will be embracing the turning of the wheel - Witch = (always) Nice

 

Ultimately:
The EU is becoming a totalitarian superstate (basically not a democracy), which is kind of worse than any current national superpower country ie USA and Russia.
The UK is/was being ruled more and more so by (EU) foreign laws/powers, and so more countries who joined the EU meant that each nations individual votes/leader opinion became weaker in terms of representation by each country when it came to decision and law making across the bloc.
The EU was only ever meant to be a trade union and nothing more - of which lately it seems all of the Brexit arguments now entirely and only revolve around, with no other consideration factors.
The likes of Nigel Farage had effectively predicted that the EU was planning an EU army - which leftists quickly and had always said wouldn't happen ie he was full of BS. Which proved otherwise, perhaps due to Trumps NATO announcements.
If not for Brexit then the world would become part of a globalist capitalist empire ruled by the richest elites / private corporations so that democracy effectively means nothing, then we're back to square one of trying to bring fairness and freedom for everyone that is socialism for all.
But instead we're left with leftist remainers accusing remainers with all of the names under the sun, which is a bit of a far cry really when considering that leftists are ALL about political correctness; don't say boo to a goose; do not cause offence in any way shape of form "or else" - "or else" and yet they classify "right-wingers" as bigots, racists, xenophobes, nazi's -- even though those things were the very reasons that won the fight against the Nazi's in WW2.

I'm sat in the middle here by the way, left vs right. Its interesting!

 

"But instead we're left with leftist remainers accusing remainers"
I meant:
we're left with leftist remainers accusing rightist leavers.

 

"The Brexit Party politician claimed to have been party to a European Parliament session on Tuesday in which the future warfare policies of the bloc were discussed by 100 "rabid federalists". Ms Pugh, who uncovered the latest bid of the European Union to implement an EU army by sharing a video on his Twitter page, showed a document entitled The Future of Warfare in which pro-EU politicians are asking for "military integration" and "strategic autonomy"."

'Astonishing' Brussels plan for EU army signed by 'rabid federalists' exposed

 

What if Boris already knows at least one country is going to veto the extension?

Would totally explain his casual attitude

Farage explains why MPs only have until Monday to stop Brexit – as he reveals Boris's plot

 

I have been following Brexit for the past few years. I think I would be fed up with it if I were British. But as an American it is fascinating like watching a car wreck is fascinating.

Probably how many of you view American politics .

 

Counting down to the day::
"The deadline will come, and a deal will so pass
Though heaped with conditions - and so not last,
A General election will follow - a judgement to test
But see no clear majority - we'll remain in a mess"

 

Also, I'd be fed up with tanning salons if I were British

 

I'm wondering why many folk who are not British are so interested in Brexit?
I mean, it's our Soap opera.

 

Lolz, no its not. As YFM said its like watching a car wreck

I still cant believe your supreme court did what they just did...for what?, an extra 3 weeks of useless bickering

Tell me in 5 years, someones not going to come along say, you know, we really should sort out this constitution thing. Move to a Presidential system, where head of state has the final say, not parliament or a panel of judges.

Tell me thats not going to happen? Did your supreme court just kill parliamentary sovereignty, just that it'll take you all 5, 10 years to work it out

Brexit:this time is a lot different because there is a far greater chance of one of those other countries vetoing an extension anyway, so clamber to get somekind of deal through just based on the implied risk of a veto, not the actual probability of one occuring (Boris and Angela having secret phone calls doesnt help with that fear)

Every labour MP is going to vote against a deal no matter what? Wouldnt be so sure about that, if they dont, that takes the DUP out of the equation. If they do all vote against it, but then you do get a veto on the extension, then everything becomes the labour partys fault

Fun times

But its not just about the UK. I so want to see that European Commision die, that is some commie bulldust

 

It will take a lot more than Parliamentary crisis to see off the Royals VG
Given the right mess they have gotten us into, the Windsor's at least give some stability to a Nation that fir all it's moaning still have pride in our sovereign head being respected across the majority (not all I know) democratic world

 

Oh no no no no, I said towards a Presidential system. I didnt say getting a President or dumping the Queen

Your Queen is supposedly not supposed to act politically, but not acting can also be political. And you dont have a constutution so its more just like a promise.

Curiously, in most of the Commonwealth the head of state acts more like a President even though most of them adopted the Westminister system.

Australia, the governor general can sack both houses of parliament. In Canada, the governor general can sack the lower house

 

Hmm, With that kind of Power I would be concerned if they would be without Challenge.
The wrong person could get into a state of Trump-like Egoism and democratic delivery of a people's will be over-looked.
Perhaps with the spectre of 1984, V for Vendetta and others of similar ilk in mind, I am overly cautious?
- Although perhaps the way the Country is being mis-managed, it may well take the emergence of a charismatic orator with Nationalist views that will stir up the possibility of radical change.

 

Kirstie

A popular claim by many supporters of the Leave campaign is that the EU is undemocratic or is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’.

How much truth is there behind these claims?

This claim mainly refers to the EU Commission: the EU’s executive body. It is true that the Commission President and the individual Commissioners are not directly elected by the peoples of Europe. So, in that sense, we cannot “throw the scoundrels out”. It is also true that under the provisions of the EU treaty, the Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation, which, if passed, is then binding on all the EU member states and the citizens of these member states.

But, that’s not the end of the story. First, the Commission’s power to propose legislation is much weaker than it at first seems. The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so.

Also, ‘proposing’ is not the same as ‘deciding’. A Commission proposal only becomes law if it is approved by both a qualified-majority in the EU Council (unanimity in many sensitive areas) and a simple majority in the European Parliament. In practice this means that after the amendments adopted by the governments and the MEPs, the legislation usually looks very different to what the Commission originally proposed. In this sense, the Commission is much weaker than it was in the 1980s, when it was harder to amend its proposals in the Council and when the European Parliament did not have amendment and veto power.

Part of the misunderstanding about the power of the Commission perhaps stems from a comparison with the British system of government. Unlike the British government, which commands a majority in the House of Commons, the Commission does not command an in-built majority in the EU Council or the European Parliament, and so has to build a coalition issue-by-issue. This puts the Commission in a much weaker position in the EU system than the British government in the UK system.

Second, the Commission President and the Commissioners are indirectly elected. Under Article 17 of the EU treaty, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission President is formally proposed by the European Council (the 28 heads of government of the EU member states), by a qualified-majority vote, and is then ‘elected’ by a majority vote in the European Parliament. In an effort to inject a bit more democracy into this process, the main European party families proposed rival candidates for the Commission President before the 2014 European Parliament elections. Then, after the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) won the most seats in the new Parliament, the European Council agreed to propose the EPP’s candidate: Jean-Claude Juncker.

The problem in Britain, though, is that this new way of ‘electing’ the Commission President did not feel very democratic. None of the main British parties are in the EPP (the Conservatives left the EPP in 2009), and so British voters were not able to vote for Juncker (although they could vote against him). There was also very little media coverage in the UK of the campaigns between the various candidates for the Commission President, so few British people understand how the process worked (unlike in some other member states). But, we can hardly blame the EU for the Conservatives leaving the EPP or for our media failing to cover the Commission President election campaign!

Then, once the Commission President is chosen, each EU member state nominates a Commissioner, and each Commissioner is then subject to a hearing in one of the committees of the European Parliament (modelled on US Senate hearings of US Presidential nominees to the US cabinet). If a committee issues a ‘negative opinion’ the candidate is usually withdrawn by the government concerned. After the hearings, the team of 28 is then subject to an up/down ‘investiture vote’ by a simple majority of the MEPs.

Finally, once invested, the Commission as a whole can be removed by a two-thirds ‘censure vote’ in the European Parliament. This has never happened before, but in 1999 the Santer Commission resigned before a censure vote was due to be taken which they were likely to lose. So, yes, the Commission is not directly elected. But it is not strictly true to say that it is ‘unelected’ or unaccountable.

And, in many ways, the way the Commission is now chosen is similar to the way the UK government is formed. Neither the British Prime Minister nor the British cabinet are ‘directly elected’. Formally, in House of Commons elections, we do not vote on the choice for the Prime Minister, but rather vote for individual MPs from different parties. Then, by convention, the Queen chooses the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to form a government. This is rather like the European Council choosing the candidate of the political group with the most seats in the European Parliament to become the Commission President.

Then, after the Prime Minister is chosen, he or she is free to choose his or her cabinet ministers. There are no hearings of individual ministerial nominees before committees of the House of Commons, and there is no formal investiture vote in the government as a whole. From this perspective, the Commissioners and the Commission are more scrutinised and more accountable than British cabinet ministers.

So, it is easy to claim that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’, but the reality is quite a long way from that. Although, having said that, I would be one of the first to acknowledge that the EU does not feel as democratic as it could or should be – as I have spent much of my academic career writing about this issue. But, this is perhaps more to do with the stage of development of the EU than because of the procedures that are now in place for choosing and removing the Commission, which are far more ‘democratic’ than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

Simon Hix is Harold Laski Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

 

Kirstie

Undemocratic EU - what about an Undemocratic UK?

I’m not saying the EU is perfect but I don’t think any system is - yes there is a certain amount of ‘democratic deceit’ in the EU but that is also true for the UK.

The parliamentary, constituency and first past the post electoral system in the UK for example means that political Party’s that get control of the government usually have power in excess (often far in excess) to their mandate.

For example even though Margret Thatcher as leader of the Conservatives won three elections the Tory’s never polled more than 43% of the popular vote. I’ve been told that that the last time a UK government was elected with more than 50% of the popular vote was back in 1931.

This means that we get things like the 2015 election when the Conservatives got only 36.9% of the popular vote but 50.9% of the Parliamentary seats.

Also remember we do not vote directly on who is going to be Prime Minister, people vote for a party and the party decides who is going to be the leader, and if that political party is in power then they chose who is to be Prime Minister – I mean who remember when ‘we’ the people voted for Boris Johnson to be ‘our’ Prime Minister - no because ‘we’ didn't - only about only 160,000 Conservative members had that choice.

 

Kirstie

It often seem to me that some leavers don’t do research or don’t talk about views with others who have or just ignore anything they don’t want to hear for example one argument put up by leavers is that the EU has changed that it was once only about trade and now covers other things which the UK didn’t sign up for.

Well as explained many times that isn’t true, anyone looking into it would know that the UK was signing up to the ‘European project’ and ‘ever closer union’ That the whole idea of the European project was for ‘ever closer union’ “It is found in the Preamble to the 1957 treaty that set up what became the EU [and] on at least six occasions the UK has signed up to it (firstly in becoming a member, and then agreeing to subsequent treaty changes)”

It has been the right wing (often neoliberal and wealth owned) media that have constantly pushed the idea that the EU was (or should) be about trade and nothing more because they like neoliberal trade deals but don’t like what they see as social interference like the EU's forthcoming anti-tax avoidance rules.

Is this the real reason why Farage and Rees-Mogg want a speedy Brexit?

 

Kirstie

Which laws which powers?

I’ve heard many leavers talk about this but they never seem able to actually say what they mean by this in the specific.