The Politics Thread 2019

[Tommo220]

the problem with the "stick" approach is that it needs the USA to buy in to it, which is never going to happen with a climate change denier in the White House

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Carrot and stick, Mac.

 

It's unreasonable of the developed world to have denuded 'our' natural resources, yet expect third world countries to preserve theirs for mankind; we should pay them to do it but ultimately be prepared to make them if they don't. The time for being nice is past.

I agree that it's unreasonable, and yeah - offer the carrot, but my own personal view of Bolsanaro is that he won't bow to anything but stick. I hope that I'm wrong, though.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Tommo220 said:

the problem with the "stick" approach is that it needs the USA to buy in to it, which is never going to happen with a climate change denier in the White House

And surely his Brazilian counterpart knows that, which is why he probably feels secure and comfy right now.

 

It is up to someone - anyone - to convince him otherwise, in whatever way possible.

[Tommo220]

 

Just now, leicsmac said:

And surely his Brazilian counterpart knows that, which is why he probably feels secure and comfy right now.

 

It is up to someone - anyone - to convince him otherwise, in whatever way possible.

without America, it boils down to the Chinese - they are Brazils biggest trading partner.  if they start spitting their dummy out, he pretty much has to take note.

[Buce]

Just now, Tommo220 said:

the problem with the "stick" approach is that it needs the USA to buy in to it, which is never going to happen with a climate change denier in the White House

 

I agree.

 

I'm actually in favour of the civilized world ostracising the USA until they vote him out but our politicians are all in bed with the capitalists, so first we need to remove our politicians and replace them with ones that understand the crisis is real and upon us.

[Tommo220]

Just now, Buce said:

 

I agree.

 

I'm actually in favour of the civilized world ostracising the USA until they vote him out but our politicians are all in bed with the capitalists, so first we need to remove our politicians and replace them with ones that understand the crisis is real and upon us.

and then we come full circle back to Brexit - there's absolutely no way whatsoever that USA gets ostracised by our politicians when we are so unbelievably dependent on a trade deal with them. 

[Buce]

Just now, Tommo220 said:

and then we come full circle back to Brexit - there's absolutely no way whatsoever that USA gets ostracised by our politicians when we are so unbelievably dependent on a trade deal with them. 

 

Then remove the politicians by whatever means necessary.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Tommo220 said:

 

without America, it boils down to the Chinese - they are Brazils biggest trading partner.  if they start spitting their dummy out, he pretty much has to take note.

And their view on environmental matters is...complex. They do like the long game, though.

 

Just now, Tommo220 said:

and then we come full circle back to Brexit - there's absolutely no way whatsoever that USA gets ostracised by our politicians when we are so unbelievably dependent on a trade deal with them. 

....proper clusterfvck, isn't it?

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, The Guvnor said:

Sorry pal, no disrespect but I've moved on from this now.

Handy that...

[LiberalFox]

Carrot/Stick doesn't really matter, I'm just aware the world's powerful nations are more likely and able to exert economic pressure than to arrange a fund to "pay off" a nation. The long term solution is either Brazil developing into a first world country that buys into conservation or a more globalised government structure that takes it out of their hands.

[Tommo220]

Just now, leicsmac said:

And their view on environmental matters is...complex. They do like the long game, though.

 

....proper clusterfvck, isn't it?

Absolutely! Sometimes i take a step back and wonder what the hell is actually going on in the world at the minute.

 

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Then remove the politicians by whatever means necessary.

ah, revolution you say.  I'm sorry, we're british old bean, we dont do revolution, thats for the uncouth. 

[Nalis]

18 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Carrot and stick, Mac.

 

It's unreasonable of the developed world to have denuded 'our' natural resources, yet expect third world countries to preserve theirs for mankind; we should pay them to do it but ultimately be prepared to make them if they don't. The time for being nice is past.

 

4 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Carrot/Stick doesn't really matter, I'm just aware the world's powerful nations are more likely and able to exert economic pressure than to arrange a fund to "pay off" a nation. The long term solution is either Brazil developing into a first world country that buys into conservation or a more globalised government structure that takes it out of their hands.

The alternative carrot and stick approach:

 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

34 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

Imposing sanctions isn't anyway forward imo. There is real poverty in Brazil and deforestation is a means to an end regarding generation of wealth. There needs to be 'first world' financial incentives to prevent this happening not punitive sanctions.

I think a combination of carrot and stick is required. I imagine any wealth generated will go mostly to the few.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Tommo220 said:

Absolutely! Sometimes i take a step back and wonder what the hell is actually going on in the world at the minute.

 

 

Interesting times.

 

And people often think that interesting always means "good".

 

7 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I think a combination of carrot and stick is required. I imagine any wealth generated will go mostly to the few.

Like I said, I have my doubts about whether or not Bolsanaro would go for any kind of carrot at all anyway given his nature but I'd hope to be wrong.

[Buce]

24 minutes ago, Tommo220 said:

 

 

ah, revolution you say.  I'm sorry, we're british old bean, we dont do revolution, thats for the uncouth. 

 

And therein lies the problem.

 

This is a global crisis - the effects won't conveniently stop at the English Channel.

[Tommo220]

the problem with a mass change of political systems is that the old system tends to like to hold on to the power that it has.  just look at whats happening in Hong Kong at the minute.  A wealth, prosperous region(?) demonstrating - mostly peacefully, are about to get absolutely smashed by their Chinese overlords if they don't clam up and get back to work.

 

i completely agree that something drastic needs to happen, but as it stands, we seem to be getting further and further away from a solution than we are closer to it.  every day theres a new right wing nut job elected somewhere in the world with a protectionist agenda.

 

 

 

[Salisbury Fox]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

And remind me - which constituency elected Dominic Cummings?

I trust you will be saying the same about Seumus Milne if Corbyn gets power?

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Thank you.

 

However, and sorry for prattling on here, but since when has the entirety of the UK electorate really had such full unmitigated democratic control anyway and (I might cop some flak for this) since when has that always been a entirely desirous thing in terms of outcomes?

No not at all, you seem to be the only one engaging in respectful debate.

It hasn’t had full unmitigated control but has become watered down even more since we joined the EEC/EU. I’d prefer the government in hand to be answerable for our present/future. You are always going to find contradictions to that but we weren’t voting on them.

[Guest Kopfkino]

8 hours ago, weller54 said:

Explain what's caused you (or anyone you know) hardship or problems during those 41 years?... I can only see positives by us being part of the EU for that period!.. 

But I'm sure you'll think of something negative. 

I've done an @Alf Bentley and waffled so much that this ended up a longer post than anyone wants on a sunny Friday evening but I’ve spoken to a couple of people about it before and its helped reframe their thinking, obviously didn’t change their minds but they at least acknowledged it. It bridges the dividing line well imo, it helped me in reconciling some of the head on arguments.  Most of it is recalling what was said to me by a Dr of EU Law last autumn with added bits I’ve read since, so it’s a presentation of the argument rather than necessarily my own personal thoughts. Alas I don’t care if nobody reads it at the end of the day, writing it was useful for my own thinking. Go to the end for the actual answer.

 

State liability doctrine was solely developed by the ECJ and now enshrined within EU law meaning that any state that breaches or doesn't impose an EU directive (as long as the case meets a set criteria) fully or within the required timeframe is liable to pay damages to those affected : “`that the Member States are obliged to make good loss and damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which they can be held responsible” and “the conditions under which that liability gives rise to a right to reparation depend on the nature of the breach of Community law giving rise to the loss and damage”. 

All in all, it sounds good and fair enough; a protection for the citizens against state illegality and to ensure every state is operating equally within the community. In fact, there’s probably not many people out there that oppose it, in and of itself. 

 

It came about in '91, initially as quite narrow and ambiguous, as a result of the Francovich case at the ECJ but has obviously developed and strengthened as case law does. Prior to ‘91 it was a matter solely of national law. It used what was then Article 5 of the EEC Treaty, and is now Article 4 of TEU (although modified), as the justification believing it to be intended within the treaties because it formed a legal order: “Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks. They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty”. I mean Article 5 is interesting because as judgements rolled in from the ECJ during the 80s people began to realise that its implications went further than was realised or intended.

 

So whether that’s enough for the whole state liability doctrine to come into being can be debated. What the argument would be is that the ECJ essentially concocted state liability (because its MO is be as integrationist as possible) and then justified it. Was it intended within by the treaties? Well Articles 226, 227, 228 (now 258, 259, 260) of the EEC Treaty (now TFEU; state liability actually exists in TFEU now but its principle of how it came about) deal with member states failing in their obligations to the community so the argument could either be that if it was intended then it’d be in there or the ECJ should have used that as the basis for its decision. Also, at the ‘91 Intergovernmental conference, national governments opposed the decision. Is it necessary? Well not really. US states maintain sovereign immunity in all matters apart from when in violation of the constitution. State liability extends beyond just the EU treaties. I think this was a point when national governments realised what Article 5 meant in the context of the ECJ’s MO and that it went beyond their intentions when delegating to supranational organisations.

 

All of these points have reasonable counterarguments btw, just these arguments are the ones that address what your question should be. For example, you could argue that the words “to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community” alongside the state’s obligation to implement a directive are more than enough to justify the decision.

 

Anyway, if you were to see it as a creation of the ECJ without sufficient grounding then you begin to question whether the ECJ is consistent with the rule of law, a principle that, in this country dates back to the Magna Carta. As I said, the problem isn’t with state liability itself but how it came into being. The UK has its own ‘tort law’as enshrined in the Crown Proceedings Act as passed by parliament through democratic means. The difference being one came into being through democratic process, the other not. The equivalent would have been for it to come about through the UK government agreeing to it in a treaty approved by the UK parliament.

 

When then you put a case like state liability alongside some of the other principles that govern the power of EU institutions, namely direct effect and primacy of the acquis (themselves ECJ creations), you get to a point where you can think about a)that a not insignificant portion of national sovereignty has been ceded and b)the national democratic implications of that. 

 

Obviously, most of the public have no knowledge of SL and probably even the exact workings of the EU but the principles remain even without the specific detail. @David Guiza studied EU law for a bit so with a far better understanding of it he might be able to use legalese to throw a spanner in the works. And that encapsulates the argument, if that national sovereignty and democracy is important to you then it’s quite natural to feel a pull away from a federal-like supranational institution. If that is less important to you, or you believe it to be necessary in a modern and future world you prefer to stay part of it. The state liability example often shows that, some people react that they don’t want foreign judges telling them what to do, others think it’s a good thing because it strengthens citizen’s rights and the intelligent ones suggest it’s, in a way, a democratic expansion.

 

So the answer to your question is, if someone like The Guvnor (he might not) values maximising UK sovereignty, the UK’s parliamentary democracy, and more localised decisions (if only the UK itself was more localised) then harm is done by ceding to the EU, indeed an erosion of democracy is harmful to us all (if we can say that is a result of EU membership).

 

Actually just to sum up, the problems a leaver might feel that are in there are: integrationism, a possible inconsistency with the English idea of the rule of law, the erosion of sovereignty such that a US state is in a way more sovereign, the implications that has for democracy, decisions by a distant court having supremacy over national parliament.

[WigstonWanderer]

What specific judgements by the ECJ using the powers you describe have affected you?

[Strokes]

31 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

What specific judgements by the ECJ using the powers you describe have affected you?

Why does that matter?

[WigstonWanderer]

15 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Why does that matter?

The original question was about how the EU had negatively affected Brexiteers. The long winded “explanation” above seems highly theoretical and contains no specific instances of decisions that have negatively affected anyone.

 

For example, I was expecting examples of “the judgement of blah, blah, blah over the UK government was highly damaging to British people”.

[weller54]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

I've done an @Alf Bentley and waffled so much that this ended up a longer post than anyone wants on a sunny Friday evening but I’ve spoken to a couple of people about it before and its helped reframe their thinking, obviously didn’t change their minds but they at least acknowledged it. It bridges the dividing line well imo, it helped me in reconciling some of the head on arguments.  Most of it is recalling what was said to me by a Dr of EU Law last autumn with added bits I’ve read since, so it’s a presentation of the argument rather than necessarily my own personal thoughts. Alas I don’t care if nobody reads it at the end of the day, writing it was useful for my own thinking. Go to the end for the actual answer.

 

State liability doctrine was solely developed by the ECJ and now enshrined within EU law meaning that any state that breaches or doesn't impose an EU directive (as long as the case meets a set criteria) fully or within the required timeframe is liable to pay damages to those affected : “`that the Member States are obliged to make good loss and damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which they can be held responsible” and “the conditions under which that liability gives rise to a right to reparation depend on the nature of the breach of Community law giving rise to the loss and damage”. 

All in all, it sounds good and fair enough; a protection for the citizens against state illegality and to ensure every state is operating equally within the community. In fact, there’s probably not many people out there that oppose it, in and of itself. 

 

It came about in '91, initially as quite narrow and ambiguous, as a result of the Francovich case at the ECJ but has obviously developed and strengthened as case law does. Prior to ‘91 it was a matter solely of national law. It used what was then Article 5 of the EEC Treaty, and is now Article 4 of TEU (although modified), as the justification believing it to be intended within the treaties because it formed a legal order: “Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks. They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty”. I mean Article 5 is interesting because as judgements rolled in from the ECJ during the 80s people began to realise that its implications went further than was realised or intended.

 

So whether that’s enough for the whole state liability doctrine to come into being can be debated. What the argument would be is that the ECJ essentially concocted state liability (because its MO is be as integrationist as possible) and then justified it. Was it intended within by the treaties? Well Articles 226, 227, 228 (now 258, 259, 260) of the EEC Treaty (now TFEU; state liability actually exists in TFEU now but its principle of how it came about) deal with member states failing in their obligations to the community so the argument could either be that if it was intended then it’d be in there or the ECJ should have used that as the basis for its decision. Also, at the ‘91 Intergovernmental conference, national governments opposed the decision. Is it necessary? Well not really. US states maintain sovereign immunity in all matters apart from when in violation of the constitution. State liability extends beyond just the EU treaties. I think this was a point when national governments realised what Article 5 meant in the context of the ECJ’s MO and that it went beyond their intentions when delegating to supranational organisations.

 

All of these points have reasonable counterarguments btw, just these arguments are the ones that address what your question should be. For example, you could argue that the words “to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community” alongside the state’s obligation to implement a directive are more than enough to justify the decision.

 

Anyway, if you were to see it as a creation of the ECJ without sufficient grounding then you begin to question whether the ECJ is consistent with the rule of law, a principle that, in this country dates back to the Magna Carta. As I said, the problem isn’t with state liability itself but how it came into being. The UK has its own ‘tort law’as enshrined in the Crown Proceedings Act as passed by parliament through democratic means. The difference being one came into being through democratic process, the other not. The equivalent would have been for it to come about through the UK government agreeing to it in a treaty approved by the UK parliament.

 

When then you put a case like state liability alongside some of the other principles that govern the power of EU institutions, namely direct effect and primacy of the acquis (themselves ECJ creations), you get to a point where you can think about a)that a not insignificant portion of national sovereignty has been ceded and b)the national democratic implications of that. 

 

Obviously, most of the public have no knowledge of SL and probably even the exact workings of the EU but the principles remain even without the specific detail. @David Guiza studied EU law for a bit so with a far better understanding of it he might be able to use legalese to throw a spanner in the works. And that encapsulates the argument, if that national sovereignty and democracy is important to you then it’s quite natural to feel a pull away from a federal-like supranational institution. If that is less important to you, or you believe it to be necessary in a modern and future world you prefer to stay part of it. The state liability example often shows that, some people react that they don’t want foreign judges telling them what to do, others think it’s a good thing because it strengthens citizen’s rights and the intelligent ones suggest it’s, in a way, a democratic expansion.

 

So the answer to your question is, if someone like The Guvnor (he might not) values maximising UK sovereignty, the UK’s parliamentary democracy, and more localised decisions (if only the UK itself was more localised) then harm is done by ceding to the EU, indeed an erosion of democracy is harmful to us all (if we can say that is a result of EU membership).

 

Actually just to sum up, the problems a leaver might feel that are in there are: integrationism, a possible inconsistency with the English idea of the rule of law, the erosion of sovereignty such that a US state is in a way more sovereign, the implications that has for democracy, decisions by a distant court having supremacy over national parliament.

Can you elaborate a little please? 

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

I've done an @Alf Bentley and waffled so much that this ended up a longer post than anyone wants on a sunny Friday evening but I’ve spoken to a couple of people about it before and its helped reframe their thinking, obviously didn’t change their minds but they at least acknowledged it. It bridges the dividing line well imo, it helped me in reconciling some of the head on arguments.  Most of it is recalling what was said to me by a Dr of EU Law last autumn with added bits I’ve read since, so it’s a presentation of the argument rather than necessarily my own personal thoughts. Alas I don’t care if nobody reads it at the end of the day, writing it was useful for my own thinking. Go to the end for the actual answer.

 

State liability doctrine was solely developed by the ECJ and now enshrined within EU law meaning that any state that breaches or doesn't impose an EU directive (as long as the case meets a set criteria) fully or within the required timeframe is liable to pay damages to those affected : “`that the Member States are obliged to make good loss and damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which they can be held responsible” and “the conditions under which that liability gives rise to a right to reparation depend on the nature of the breach of Community law giving rise to the loss and damage”. 

All in all, it sounds good and fair enough; a protection for the citizens against state illegality and to ensure every state is operating equally within the community. In fact, there’s probably not many people out there that oppose it, in and of itself. 

 

It came about in '91, initially as quite narrow and ambiguous, as a result of the Francovich case at the ECJ but has obviously developed and strengthened as case law does. Prior to ‘91 it was a matter solely of national law. It used what was then Article 5 of the EEC Treaty, and is now Article 4 of TEU (although modified), as the justification believing it to be intended within the treaties because it formed a legal order: “Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks. They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty”. I mean Article 5 is interesting because as judgements rolled in from the ECJ during the 80s people began to realise that its implications went further than was realised or intended.

 

So whether that’s enough for the whole state liability doctrine to come into being can be debated. What the argument would be is that the ECJ essentially concocted state liability (because its MO is be as integrationist as possible) and then justified it. Was it intended within by the treaties? Well Articles 226, 227, 228 (now 258, 259, 260) of the EEC Treaty (now TFEU; state liability actually exists in TFEU now but its principle of how it came about) deal with member states failing in their obligations to the community so the argument could either be that if it was intended then it’d be in there or the ECJ should have used that as the basis for its decision. Also, at the ‘91 Intergovernmental conference, national governments opposed the decision. Is it necessary? Well not really. US states maintain sovereign immunity in all matters apart from when in violation of the constitution. State liability extends beyond just the EU treaties. I think this was a point when national governments realised what Article 5 meant in the context of the ECJ’s MO and that it went beyond their intentions when delegating to supranational organisations.

 

All of these points have reasonable counterarguments btw, just these arguments are the ones that address what your question should be. For example, you could argue that the words “to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community” alongside the state’s obligation to implement a directive are more than enough to justify the decision.

 

Anyway, if you were to see it as a creation of the ECJ without sufficient grounding then you begin to question whether the ECJ is consistent with the rule of law, a principle that, in this country dates back to the Magna Carta. As I said, the problem isn’t with state liability itself but how it came into being. The UK has its own ‘tort law’as enshrined in the Crown Proceedings Act as passed by parliament through democratic means. The difference being one came into being through democratic process, the other not. The equivalent would have been for it to come about through the UK government agreeing to it in a treaty approved by the UK parliament.

 

When then you put a case like state liability alongside some of the other principles that govern the power of EU institutions, namely direct effect and primacy of the acquis (themselves ECJ creations), you get to a point where you can think about a)that a not insignificant portion of national sovereignty has been ceded and b)the national democratic implications of that. 

 

Obviously, most of the public have no knowledge of SL and probably even the exact workings of the EU but the principles remain even without the specific detail. @David Guiza studied EU law for a bit so with a far better understanding of it he might be able to use legalese to throw a spanner in the works. And that encapsulates the argument, if that national sovereignty and democracy is important to you then it’s quite natural to feel a pull away from a federal-like supranational institution. If that is less important to you, or you believe it to be necessary in a modern and future world you prefer to stay part of it. The state liability example often shows that, some people react that they don’t want foreign judges telling them what to do, others think it’s a good thing because it strengthens citizen’s rights and the intelligent ones suggest it’s, in a way, a democratic expansion.

 

So the answer to your question is, if someone like The Guvnor (he might not) values maximising UK sovereignty, the UK’s parliamentary democracy, and more localised decisions (if only the UK itself was more localised) then harm is done by ceding to the EU, indeed an erosion of democracy is harmful to us all (if we can say that is a result of EU membership).

 

Actually just to sum up, the problems a leaver might feel that are in there are: integrationism, a possible inconsistency with the English idea of the rule of law, the erosion of sovereignty such that a US state is in a way more sovereign, the implications that has for democracy, decisions by a distant court having supremacy over national parliament.

I think your academic view supports my own amatuer  instinctive view, that democracy with in the EU is diluted....but the citizen's rights and freedoms are strengthened.

 

It's just that I fall the other side of the fence to you in believing that multi national integration, cooperation and free trade, travel and learning is worth it.

[Strokes]

24 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

The original question was about how the EU had negatively affected Brexiteers. The long winded “explanation” above seems highly theoretical and contains no specific instances of decisions that have negatively affected anyone.

 

For example, I was expecting examples of “the judgement of blah, blah, blah over the UK government was highly damaging to British people”.

I don’t think that post was in response to that though, as Kopf is not a brexiteer but is just somebody who can see both sides of the coin.