Help Me Understand Brexit/UK Mess
This LBC caller knows the real truth behind Brexit. Sure hope this player embed works.
ridski says: Found a new, more appropriate chart.
Oh ridski, sorry this is happening in UK, but you make me laugh TOO LOUD.
conandrob240 said:
WTF is going on? In reading all the rejected proposal summaries (ranging from stay in EU to leave EU and everything in between), what exactly do they (parliament) want? I don’t understand what’s going on.
EU is undemocratic. Hard to imagine who would want to be controlled by a distant body that is undemocratic.
"[EU] Commission [(AKA "EC")]has a virtual monopoly on the introduction of legislation into the legislative process, a power which gives the Commission considerable influence as an agenda setter for the EU as a whole. And while the Commission frequently introduces legislation at the behest of the Council or upon the suggestion of Parliament, what form any legislative proposals introduced take is up to the Commission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_legislative_procedure
The EU Commission (AKA "EC") is NOT elected but instead appointed.
"The European Commission (EC) is an institution of the European Union, responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU treaties and managing the day-to-day business of the EU. Commissioners swear an oath at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg City, pledging to respect the treaties and to be completely independent in carrying out their duties during their mandate.[3] Unlike in the Council of the European Union, where members are directly and indirectly elected, and the European Parliament, where members are directly elected, the Commissioners are proposed by the Council of the European Union, on the basis of suggestions made by the national governments, and then appointed by the European Council after the approval of the European Parliament." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
Attached jpg from: lh5.ggpht.com/-uSSEjuSY3pA/UQRAV6ktFCI/AAAAAAAAA8A/YT3WwoipUE0/s1600-h/eu-ukFlowchart%25255B10%25255D.gif
ml1 said:
PVW said:My point isn't that Trump is bad for the 0.1%. He isn't. My point was that the suffering that exists in much of this country contributed greatly to the rise of Trump's brand of populism. And if things don't change for the working class, they may in the future turn to an even more extreme reaction than electing Trump. And who knows what that might be. If I were a Master of the Universe, and I didn't want the working people of this country to rise up in a backlash, I'd be supporting politicians who would try to figure out a way to address some of their legitimate grievances. If people had more economic security, affordable health care, and hope that their kids could do better than they have, they wouldn't be as easily manipulated by a demagogue. And if the country stays on this trajectory of extreme inequality for the next 20 or 30 years, who knows what kind of demagogue that could be.
True. Under Trump, it's not like, say, NYC is going to get access to major markets cut off the way London's about to be cut off from the EU. And those opposed to Trump have a clear alternative in the Pelosi-led Dems, whereas Brits have... Corbyn.
I'm surprised to see you say this, as there is little evidence that this was a major motivator in voting for Trump.
ridski said:
This LBC caller knows the real truth behind Brexit. Sure hope this player embed works.
I don't think it worked, because I couldn't understand a damn word the caller was saying.
drummerboy said:
I'm surprised to see you say this, as there is little evidence that this was a major motivator in voting for Trump.
it is a major motivator for people abandoning the Democratic Party. Trump didn't just win because people voted for him. He also won because people didn't vote for Hillary.
it's also a major motivator for people to latch onto the scapegoats that Trump tossed out to them.
The House of Commons just voted down all four options in an indicative vote.
Nah, nope, no, nay.
But Boles’ comment on the protesters stole the day for me.
The Customs Union option lost by only 3 votes. The votes (by margin of loss):
Customs Union (3)
Second referendum (12)
Norway + (21)
Revoke Article 50 (101)
proeasdf said:
EU is undemocratic. Hard to imagine who would want to be controlled by a distant body that is undemocratic.
Really. Everyone on this DB is controlled by " a distant body that is undemocratic" to wit: the Government of the United States of America.
The Chief Executive received fewer votes from citizens than his opponent and was chosen by the Electoral College which meets in secret and not one of whose members can be named by me or anyone I know.
The Legislative Body has two Chambers, on of which is composed of two members from each of 50 arbitrarily drawn geographical locations which have widely varying populations. The other Chamber is supposed to be made up of one person from each of 435 entities with almost equal populations but that is marred by the fact that each of those previously mentioned geographical locations must have at least one representative even if their population is far below that of a single District in a more populous geographical entity and is further marred by the arithmetical manipulation known as gerrymandering.
So, New Jersexit anyone?
STANV said:
proeasdf said:Really. Everyone on this DB is controlled by " a distant body that is undemocratic" to wit: the Government of the United States of America.
EU is undemocratic. Hard to imagine who would want to be controlled by a distant body that is undemocratic.
The Chief Executive received fewer votes from citizens than his opponent and was chosen by the Electoral College which meets in secret and not one of whose members can be named by me or anyone I know.
The Legislative Body has two Chambers, on of which is composed of two members from each of 50 arbitrarily drawn geographical locations which have widely varying populations. The other Chamber is supposed to be made up of one person from each of 435 entities with almost equal populations but that is marred by the fact that each of those previously mentioned geographical locations must have at least one representative even if their population is far below that of a single District in a more populous geographical entity and is further marred by the arithmetical manipulation known as gerrymandering.
So, New Jersexit anyone?
Your posting fails to address the fact that The EU Commission (AKA "EC") is NOT elected but instead appointed. You also fail to address the fact that the EC is almost always fully responsible for EC agenda.
The EC generally proposes what legislation will be considered by the EU. In the EU situation, an UNELECTED commission (AKA EC) sets the agenda for the EU. The un-elected EC setting the EU legislative agenda is not comparable to differences in the proportion of voters versus the number of US House representatives and/or Senators*.
The un-elected EC is not accountable to EU voters. The EC is the keystone of the EU in that it determines what types of EU legislation proposed. As a result, the EC is per se UNDEMOCRATIC. The group who sets the EU agenda has enormous power over the EU.
*- Rhode Island has two ("2") representatives in Congress (528k residents per representative for a gross population of about 1056k) while Montana has one ("1") representative in Congress (994k residents per representative for a gross population of about 994k). There is no provision for fractional representatives. Which means that RI has about 62k more people than Montana but receives twice as many representatives. https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml?sort=Hous#table
Postscript: "With the exception of revenue or tax bills, which must originate in the House, legislation can be introduced in either the House or the Senate; sometimes identical bills are introduced in both houses." https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/american-government/congress/how-a-bill-becomes-a-law Which means that both the House and Senate have control over the agenda (and both are elected) unlike the EU commission (AKA EC).
proeasdf said:
Your posting fails to address the fact that The EU Commission (AKA "EC") is NOT elected but instead appointed. You also fail to address the fact that the EC is almost always fully responsible for EC agenda.
The EC generally proposes what legislation will be considered by the EU. In the EU situation, an UNELECTED commission (AKA EC) sets the agenda for the EU. The un-elected EC setting the EU legislative agenda is not comparable to differences in the proportion of voters versus the number of US House representatives and/or Senators*.
The un-elected EC is not accountable to EU voters. The EC is the keystone of the EU in that it determines what types of EU legislation proposed. As a result, the EC is per se UNDEMOCRATIC. The group who sets the EU agenda has enormous power over the EU.
*- Rhode Island has two ("2") representatives in Congress (528k residents per representative for a gross population of about 1056k) while Montana has one ("1") representative in Congress (994k residents per representative for a gross population of about 994k). There is no provision for fractional representatives. Which means that RI has about 62k more people than Montana but receives twice as many representatives. https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml?sort=Hous#table
Postscript: "With the exception of revenue or tax bills, which must originate in the House, legislation can be introduced in either the House or the Senate; sometimes identical bills are introduced in both houses." https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/american-government/congress/how-a-bill-becomes-a-law Which means that both the House and Senate have control over the agenda (and both are elected) unlike the EU commission (AKA EC).
You know, a lot of government is appointed. Usually, the appointments are made by people who are elected. It's a natural way of governing. You can't elect every damn person in the bureaucracy.
Do you have complaints with what the EU Commission has actually done, and if so, are you saying those things would not have been done if the members were elected?
Or are you just going to rail about the fact that it's anti-democratic, with no substantive critiques?
How democratic is is that Scotland voted Remain, but will be forced out of the EU by England?
drummerboy said:
Or are you just going to rail about the fact that it's anti-democratic, with no substantive critiques?
Only until another college professor complains about the free speech crisis on American campuses, if proeasdf’s comments are any clue.
PVW said:
How democratic is is that Scotland voted Remain, but will be forced out of the EU by England?
NJ and NY would surely vote overwhelmingly against the SALT limit imposed upon us by red state politicians. Which is as democratic as what will happen to Scotland.
That's democracy.
Usual jokes aside, a well-written article by a prominent British Brexiteer. Many remainers find they could live with Brexit if it’s planned well and has an obvious benefit to the British people. Rushing toward it might not be the best plan.
Brexit, Ireland and the Failure of the European Idea
Of course the British never gave even a passing thought to Ireland when they voted for Brexit.
The British are apparently gearing up to participate in the European Parliament election, on the assumption that Brexit will be pushed off.
Mr. Ridski could make a triumphant return home and put his hat in the ring. Just a suggestion.
"Here's your hat. What's your hurry?"
Personally, I like ridski better with us.
BG9 said:
PVW said:NJ and NY would surely vote overwhelmingly against the SALT limit imposed upon us by red state politicians. Which is as democratic as what will happen to Scotland.
How democratic is is that Scotland voted Remain, but will be forced out of the EU by England?
That's democracy.
Only a surface similarity in the two situations. Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland are distinct countries within the United Kingdom. NY, NJ, and the other 48 states do not have anything like a similar status (and any argument to the contrary was decisively settled by General Grant in 1865).
PVW said:
BG9 said:Only a surface similarity in the two situations. Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland are distinct countries within the United Kingdom. NY, NJ, and the other 48 states do not have anything like a similar status (and any argument to the contrary was decisively settled by General Grant in 1865).
PVW said:NJ and NY would surely vote overwhelmingly against the SALT limit imposed upon us by red state politicians. Which is as democratic as what will happen to Scotland.
How democratic is is that Scotland voted Remain, but will be forced out of the EU by England?
That's democracy.
They're not "distinct countries" for foreign policy, even if they may be for football.
nohero said:
PVW said:They're not "distinct countries" for foreign policy, even if they may be for football.
BG9 said:Only a surface similarity in the two situations. Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland are distinct countries within the United Kingdom. NY, NJ, and the other 48 states do not have anything like a similar status (and any argument to the contrary was decisively settled by General Grant in 1865).
PVW said:NJ and NY would surely vote overwhelmingly against the SALT limit imposed upon us by red state politicians. Which is as democratic as what will happen to Scotland.
How democratic is is that Scotland voted Remain, but will be forced out of the EU by England?
That's democracy.
One of the ways Brexit's been playing out is to put renewed attention on what, exactly, the nature of the union at the heart of the United Kingdom really is. You can see it in increased prominence of the English St. George's Cross flags. You can see it in the actions of the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party). You can, perhaps most acutely, see it in the weird dynamic between May and the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party -- Northern Ireland), and of course the way the question of the Irish border is in so many ways at the base of the Brexit impasse.
For Sale
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I wasn't quite addressing your point, more was just sharing a thought spurred by @cztrzaka's comment. I think in many ways the UK political situation is worse than ours, and I'm surprised to find this so because in general I think parliamentary systems provide more options for resolving things when politics gets "stuck." Every two years here we can basically have a chance to elect two governments in direct opposition to each other, each endowed with legitimate claims to being representative of the electorate's will, and no clear mechanism to resolve disputes between them. In a parliament, by contrast, you can always call a new election if needed.
Yet currently Britain seems even more stuck than we are. I think I'm most surprised by the ineffectiveness of Labour -- from the outside I'd have expected Labour to be the natural home of the "Remain" camp, but a) I clearly don't follow British politics closely enough to understand how it is that Corbyn is the Labour leader and b) Brexit seems to have so thoroughly mixed up traditional party identities that Leave/Remain doesn't map well to the existing parties, and even three years hasn't been enough to create a realignment of parties to match actual constituencies. So even though in theory May could be challenged by the Remain constituency, there doesn't seem to be an actual Remain party, and parties are everything in a parliamentary system.
On your point, I'll note that while I agree economic inequality is a problem, but I don't think it's a sufficient explanation. I think questions of identity, and people's anxiety and uncertainty around it, also drive a lot of the "populism" we've been seeing, and in some ways that works in concert with issues around economic inequality but in other ways I think it's independent of that. IOW, I'm not convinced "more economic security, affordable health care, and hope that their kids could do [economically] better than they have" would be enough to stave off the appeal of demagogues.