The Politics Thread 2019

[David Guiza]

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

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.

You've pretty much summed it up from a legal perspective, at least putting it simply anyway. 

 

You often hear the Rule of Law thrown around during Brexit arguments, which is effectively just the restriction of complete/arbitrary power through correctly set out law(s) and whether or not the EU, from a legal perspective, is anti or pro Rule of Law is somewhat complex. I would argue that they help to enforce the Rule of Law by keeping check on member states and preventing, or at least helping to prevent, them from having absolute power and protecting the rights of individual citizens. Though that of course is called into question by the 'being told what to do by undemocratic bodies' etc. 

 

I think the Rule of Law is in greater danger in a hard-Brexit/no deal withdrawal than it ever has been under EU membership on the simplistic basis that there is one less body in the way of absolute power, particularly if Johnson had an increased majority too. The legal side of the EU is far from faultless, but some of their input has been vital over the past decades with workers rights and climate/animal welfare issues in particular. 

 

The amount of say and that the EU has is over dramatised by both sides too, like everything else seems to be. There isn't huge pressure for us to have to follow EU law at any point despite what some say. 

 

Edited 23 August 2019 by David Guiza

[Spiritwalker]

8 hours ago, The Guvnor said:

Conversely I have not met any leavers who would have been 'happy' staying in the CU or SM. As for your last sentence there is no point in voting for anything unless you ' fully understand' all possible outcomes, maybe your mates should have been a little more 'switched on'.

With you all the way on this. Many of the leavers should have been a little more 'switched on',

but that's democracy for you.

 

[WigstonWanderer]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

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.

Ok sorry if I misunderstood. Just trying to understand what the EU have actually done to make Brexiteers so angry. The things that people seem to be upset about such as austerity, housing, NHS, train service, etc, seem to be down to the UK government. Even with the “foreigners are stealing our jobs” argument, it is very unlikely that Brexit will make things better.

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Strokes said:

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.

Fair enough.

 

My own take is that there are problems that are global and extend beyond national borders and require global solutions, with global input and going beyond sovereignty.

[weller54]

8 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Ok sorry if I misunderstood. Just trying to understand what the EU have actually done to make Brexiteers so angry. The things that people seem to be upset about such as austerity, housing, NHS, train service, etc, seem to be down to the UK government. Even with the “foreigners are stealing our jobs” argument, it is very unlikely that Brexit will make things better.

Fact is a certain generation is stacked full of xenophobics and Little Englanders! 

[Strokes]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough.

 

My own take is that there are problems that are global and extend beyond national borders and require global solutions, with global input and going beyond sovereignty.

I agree there are, but the EU isnt a global body, far from it.

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Fact is a certain generation is stacked full of xenophobics and Little Englanders! 

You might be right, I’ve certainly seen and heard more racism and xenophobia in the last 12 months than I had in the previous decade. It’s a pity that these peoples narrow minds exist and I don’t share their views. However I do seem to agree with them, that having a European central governing body in it’s current trajectory, is not the right path for this country. 

I’m not going to get into the national pride debate again on here but it’s a strange concept the whole ‘little englander’ tag. Something you never see laid on Welsh, Scottish or Irish nationalists. It’s a bit xenophobic if you ask me.

[Carl the Llama]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You might be right, I’ve certainly seen and heard more racism and xenophobia in the last 12 months than I had in the previous decade. It’s a pity that these peoples narrow minds exist and I don’t share their views. However I do seem to agree with them, that having a European central governing body in it’s current trajectory, is not the right path for this country. 

I’m not going to get into the national pride debate again on here but it’s a strange concept the whole ‘little englander’ tag. Something you never see laid on Welsh, Scottish or Irish nationalists. It’s a bit xenophobic if you ask me.

Probably because they aren't English? 

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I agree there are, but the EU isnt a global body, far from it.

That's true, but it is at least something of an exercise in international cooperation, and as time goes by more of that is going to be needed imo.

[Buce]

18 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You might be right, I’ve certainly seen and heard more racism and xenophobia in the last 12 months than I had in the previous decade. It’s a pity that these peoples narrow minds exist and I don’t share their views. However I do seem to agree with them, that having a European central governing body in it’s current trajectory, is not the right path for this country. 

I’m not going to get into the national pride debate again on here but it’s a strange concept the whole ‘little englander’ tag. Something you never see laid on Welsh, Scottish or Irish nationalists. It’s a bit xenophobic if you ask me.

 

I think it's the manner in which the nationalism is displayed that is the difference. The Welsh, Scots and Irish show pride in their culture without xenophobia towards others. You don't get groups of them singing '10 German bombers' as they stagger drunkenly around a foreign resort. They follow their football teams around the world and mix happily with the locals rather than insulting them and smashing up their cities. The whole 'In-ger-land' thing is xenophobic and downright embarrassing  - it's not so much a celebration of English culture but a denigration of others'.

Edited 24 August 2019 by Buce

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

I think it's the manner in which the nationalism is displayed that is the difference. The Welsh, Scots and Irish show pride in their culture without xenophobia towards others. You don't get groups of them singing '10 German bombers' as they stagger drunkenly around a foreign resort. They follow their football teams around the world and mix happily with the locals rather than insulting them and smashing up their cities. The whole 'In-ger-land' thing is xenophobic and downright embarrassing  - it's not so much a celebration of English culture but a denigration of others'.

No but there are plenty of sectarian chanting coming from the jocks.

[yorkie1999]

2 hours ago, weller54 said:

Fact is a certain generation is stacked full of xenophobics and Little Englanders! 

You're right, but those people need encouragement from those above, and why would those above be so encouraging. It's all about manipulation without people realising they're being manipulated.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en

Edited 24 August 2019 by yorkie1999

[Buce]

38 minutes ago, Strokes said:

No but there are plenty of sectarian chanting coming from the jocks.

 

 

But sectarian bigotry has nothing to do with nationalism. 

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

 

But sectarian bigotry has nothing to do with nationalism. 

Yeah but if one group of people are utterly distasteful then that makes it ok for another group to be utterly distasteful.

[Kopfkino]

15 hours 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”.

Well it negatively affects you if your preference is for decisions to be made and for the laws that govern you to be formed by due democratic process by the UK government. I don't really know how that isn't a negative effect of EU membership?

 

You want a specific end as an example of a 'harm', the point merely is that the means, depending on preferences, priorities, and yes worldview, are the 'harm'. It really is just a different kind of manifestation of 'do the ends justify the means' albeit that's a dramatisation like much of the EU question is as David Guiza says. One group think the ends are enough: EU minimum standards are a good thing, an extension of some citizen's rights are a good thing, the economic benefits aren't to be sniffed at etc etc. The other group are more bothered about the means with which that was achieved and prefer a democratic process closer to home to deliver the ends. The two positions don't easily reconcile because one side is really bothered about the ends and don't want them taking away from them, the other is less bothered about the ends such that they're now so blasé that any damage seems to be fine. 

 

15 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

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.

Tbf I don't fall on either side of the fence, I'm firmly planted on it not being bothered much if we remain or leave. I want us to leave because that's what we voted to do and from the outset I hoped that would be EEA/Efta (this was always problematic because of the referendum campaign) to park us in the slow lane of a two speed Europe which retains the benefits you cite. (which is what I want anyway but not enough to vote for it to happen). 

 

I'd just rather the whole country could be more grown-up about it. I often take up being devil's advocate for the Leave argument because it's better than having to listen to the lazy characterisations of Leave voters and the deliberate ignorance of the position does nobody any favours. Remain's best tool was always to engage, understand, address and pushback on Leave arguments but they failed horrifically. They've been too busy arguing about what was on the side of the bus rather than what the message represented. Alas people still want specific judgements to demonstrate why someone would oppose the EU rather than what ECJ judgements and EU Law represent in the mind of a Leaver.

[Grebfromgrebland]

13 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Ok sorry if I misunderstood. Just trying to understand what the EU have actually done to make Brexiteers so angry. The things that people seem to be upset about such as austerity, housing, NHS, train service, etc, seem to be down to the UK government. Even with the “foreigners are stealing our jobs” argument, it is very unlikely that Brexit will make things better.

They weren't angry then the EU announced anti money laundering laws. Then they were told to get angry. Everyone with offshore funds, David Cameron and the Queen included, do not want to pay their taxes for the benefit of the country.

[Buce]

[Grebfromgrebland]

More of this taking back control malarkey

 

 

 

[Buce]

 

 

Johnson is seeking legal advice regarding prorogation:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/24/johnson-seeks-legal-advice-parliament-closure

 

Did someone mention democracy?

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

9 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Well it negatively affects you if your preference is for decisions to be made and for the laws that govern you to be formed by due democratic process by the UK government. I don't really know how that isn't a negative effect of EU 

This is exactly one of the key problems though: What is the justification for that point of view?  Is there a logical, non-populist argument for saying that every last law that we abide by must necessarily be 100% British in origin even if it affects the wider European or Global community?  

[Carl the Llama]

34 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

Johnson is seeking legal advice regarding prorogation:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/24/johnson-seeks-legal-advice-parliament-closure

 

Did someone mention democracy?

 

 

Only when it helped them make the EU out to be some oppressive technocracy.

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

This is exactly one of the key problems though: What is the justification for that point of view?  Is there a logical, non-populist argument for saying that every last law that we abide by must necessarily be 100% British in origin even if it affects the wider European or Global community?  

It's a view that's increasingly at odds with the realities of a smaller, more globalised world we live in now but I also I don't quite think it's about 'every last law being entirely of British origin' although yes I'm sure some people think like that. I think there is a coherent justification for that view and I wish somebody like Tony Benn was still around to give. The short and simple answer is that, you'd need to argue why supranationalism, at least to the EU level (direct effect and primacy), isn't necessary and why intergovernmentalism would suffice. I mean even if parliament had to approve EU law and could reject, rather than it having direct effect (as is the case with EEA/Efta), that would be due democratic process.

 

Then, for the more complete justification the argument can follow that the UK system of government and parliament is more accountable and has more democratic legitimacy than the EU, that democracy works better, at least to a point, the more localised it is (leaving the EU should be coupled with local democratic reform and delegation, the UK is too centralised). Mash that up with something about the English the rule of law v EU rule of law and you have the framework of a justification.

 

I don't know if it passes the logical test though. It might be illogical because it's somewhat a relic or maybe logic dictates supranationalism is vital moving forwards. I don't personally think it's illogical, nor unjustified, but fair enough some people might.

 

Just to add, I think it'd be a less relevant view if the EU had more democratic credibility.

Edited 24 August 2019 by Kopfkino

[Carl the Llama]

6 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

It's a view that's increasingly at odds with the realities of a smaller, more globalised world we live in now but I also I don't quite think it's about 'every last law being entirely of British origin' although yes I'm sure some people think like that. I think there is a coherent justification for that view and I wish somebody like Tony Benn was still around to give. The short and simple answer is that, you'd need to argue why supranationalism, at least to the EU level (direct effect and primacy), isn't necessary and why intergovernmentalism would suffice. I mean even if parliament had to approve EU law and could reject, rather than it having direct effect (as is the case with EEA/Efta), that would be due democratic process.

 

Then, for the more complete justification the argument can follow that the UK system of government and parliament is more accountable and has more democratic legitimacy than the EU, that democracy works better, at least to a point, the more localised it is (leaving the EU should be coupled with local democratic reform and delegation, the UK is too centralised). Mash that up with something about the English the rule of law v EU rule of law and you have the framework of a justification.

 

I don't know if it passes the logical test though. It might be illogical because it's somewhat a relic or maybe logic dictates supranationalism is vital moving forwards. I don't personally think it's illogical, nor unjustified, but fair enough some people might.

 

Just to add, I think it'd be a less relevant view if the EU had more democratic credibility.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond so thoughtfully.  You're very good at covering both sides of an argument.

 

One point I take issue with there though is the claim that the EU is a supranational entity.  It bears elements of supranationalism whereby policies & standards must be applied unilaterally but ultimately it's an intergovernmental union because no member state is dictated to by a higher authority (despite all the unfounded concerns about the position of Commission President).  The press and certain bog-eyed freaks have done a good job of making it seem that way but if a decision is made against your state's will it's because the other members outvoted you on the matter democratically.

 

As for UK govt being more directly democratic: Someone did the maths and it turned out that a vote for your MEP is ultimately more representative than your vote in UK elections.  So for me anybody bemoaning the democratic nature of the EU must necessarily take the same stance with the UK govt, you've done so but I've made this point to many others and in my experience you're in the minority on that one, there seems to be more willingness to stomach 'undemocratic' behaviour if it's seen to take place on home soil.

[Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

I appreciate you taking the time to respond so thoughtfully.  You're very good at covering both sides of an argument.

 

One point I take issue with there though is the claim that the EU is a supranational entity.  It bears elements of supranationalism whereby policies & standards must be applied unilaterally but ultimately it's an intergovernmental union because no member state is dictated to by a higher authority (despite all the unfounded concerns about the position of Commission President).  The press and certain bog-eyed freaks have done a good job of making it seem that way but if a decision is made against your state's will it's because the other members outvoted you on the matter democratically.

 

As for UK govt being more directly democratic: Someone did the maths and it turned out that a vote for your MEP is ultimately more representative than your vote in UK elections.  So for me anybody bemoaning the democratic nature of the EU must necessarily take the same stance with the UK govt, you've done so but I've made this point to many others and in my experience you're in the minority on that one, there seems to be more willingness to stomach 'undemocratic' behaviour if it's seen to take place on home soil.

Supranationalism is admittedly a loose and wooly expression and it's not completely supranational but I can't agree that it's an intergovernmental union, nor was it intended to be. The Council (itself somewhat problematic because parliament can't hold to account our government's actions within the Council) is somewhat intergovernmental (QMV means it isn't quite as intergovernmental as some would have you believe) and the Council has a role in setting the direction and conferring powers but the EU already has its own legal order (which has primacy over national law), something that resembles its own executive and legislative, its own judicial authority, and its own monetary authority. Its institutions act within the cumulative European interests That's a hell of a lot more than actual intergovernmental institutions like the UN, NATO, WTO, WHO OPEC etc etc. It's a uniquely powerful transnational legal regime which I think makes it far more supranational than intergovernmental. I mean technically its a 'sui generis' international organisation. 

 

That's fine if you define and judge democracy solely with respect to representativeness. But that'd be very narrow. Democratic systems have always been a trade off between accountability and representativeness, the UK's system of parliament and elections being more accountable v representative, for the EU elections (the system for EU elections is still a UK decision rather than conferred by the EU of course) is better set up for representativeness over accountability. Accountability is something the EU is relatively poor at. But there's still a lot more to democratic legitimacy than either representativeness or accountability. Tony Benn's 5 questions are a reasonable starting point but also actually you have to account for citizenship, shared experiences, aspects of culture and national constitutions when thinking about democratic legitimacy. That might get a groan and its unfair on the EU because its something that requires time (in 150 years people probably wouldn't bat an eyelid), it's important for democratic legitimacy. 

 

But yes more needs to be done at home and people should start applying principles at home across the board, ie not supporting something wholly undemocratic to deliver the outcome you want.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

I appreciate you taking the time to respond so thoughtfully.  You're very good at covering both sides of an argument.

 

One point I take issue with there though is the claim that the EU is a supranational entity.  It bears elements of supranationalism whereby policies & standards must be applied unilaterally but ultimately it's an intergovernmental union because no member state is dictated to by a higher authority (despite all the unfounded concerns about the position of Commission President).  The press and certain bog-eyed freaks have done a good job of making it seem that way but if a decision is made against your state's will it's because the other members outvoted you on the matter democratically.

 

As for UK govt being more directly democratic: Someone did the maths and it turned out that a vote for your MEP is ultimately more representative than your vote in UK elections.  So for me anybody bemoaning the democratic nature of the EU must necessarily take the same stance with the UK govt, you've done so but I've made this point to many others and in my experience you're in the minority on that one, there seems to be more willingness to stomach 'undemocratic' behaviour if it's seen to take place on home soil.

 

39 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Supranationalism is admittedly a loose and wooly expression and it's not completely supranational but I can't agree that it's an intergovernmental union, nor was it intended to be. The Council (itself somewhat problematic because parliament can't hold to account our government's actions within the Council) is somewhat intergovernmental (QMV means it isn't quite as intergovernmental as some would have you believe) and the Council has a role in setting the direction and conferring powers but the EU already has its own legal order (which has primacy over national law), something that resembles its own executive and legislative, its own judicial authority, and its own monetary authority. Its institutions act within the cumulative European interests That's a hell of a lot more than actual intergovernmental institutions like the UN, NATO, WTO, WHO OPEC etc etc. It's a uniquely powerful transnational legal regime which I think makes it far more supranational than intergovernmental. I mean technically its a 'sui generis' international organisation. 

 

That's fine if you define and judge democracy solely with respect to representativeness. But that'd be very narrow. Democratic systems have always been a trade off between accountability and representativeness, the UK's system of parliament and elections being more accountable v representative, for the EU elections (the system for EU elections is still a UK decision rather than conferred by the EU of course) is better set up for representativeness over accountability. Accountability is something the EU is relatively poor at. But there's still a lot more to democratic legitimacy than either representativeness or accountability. Tony Benn's 5 questions are a reasonable starting point but also actually you have to account for citizenship, shared experiences, aspects of culture and national constitutions when thinking about democratic legitimacy. That might get a groan and its unfair on the EU because its something that requires time (in 150 years people probably wouldn't bat an eyelid), it's important for democratic legitimacy. 

 

But yes more needs to be done at home and people should start applying principles at home across the board, ie not supporting something wholly undemocratic to deliver the outcome you want.

And people say the standard of discourse is bad in these threads these days.