To ask what we have to look forward to after March 29th 2019

[Bearbehind]

It turns out Theresa May’s definition of ‘soverignity and democracy’ is to postpone a democratic vote, not allow anyone except her to change their mind and generally run to clock down until her deal is the only option.

So what do people think about that?

What are the benefits we have to look forward to when we leave the EU given it turns out ‘they don’t actually need is more than we need them’ after all?

What are we doing this for?

(And for those who want to ignore Brexit, don’t read this thread. Equally, this is the biggest thing this country has ever faced in most of our generation so please don’t banish this to the Brexit section)

Moussemoose

The EU has two democratically elected chambers the Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

The European Parliament is elected by closed proportional representation (ie, you vote for a party). It cannot initiate legislation.

The Council of Ministers is comprised of appointed officials who are elected within each member state. From a European-wide perspective that looks democratic, but from the perspective of any individual state it isn't, because they have no say in the election of the other members.

The UK House of Commons is comprised of people all of whom have been voted for and elected by name in one single general election. The House of Commons can also initiate legislation. It does not have to be proposed by the Government. It can also cause the removal of government.

The UK House of Commons is therefore more democratic than the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.

Two democratically elected chambers as opposed to the one in the U.K.

Irrelevant. The House of Lords is in reality a revising chamber only and will not stand in the way of the Commons if there is a conflict. That is well established by convention.

It has checks and balances in place and the elections are free and fair. That is pretty much a definition of a democratic organisation.

As is the UK.

The Commission and the ECJ are not elected but lots of countries have unelected courts and civil services. This is within the bounds of accepted democratic practice. You could argue they could be elected but there are sound reasons for rejecting that.

The European Commission's members are appointed. It is misleading to compare the Commission to a civil service. For example, the UK civil service does not propose legislation, nor is it responsible for overseeing it. That is the responsiblity of the minister in charge.

This is very important as the existence of the European Commission takes lawmaking one step removed from the electorate. This may be pragmatic, but it undermines democracy.

It's not the role of courts to be democratic. I expect we agree on that point.

You may dislike the balance of power and the structure within the EU but it simply is a democratic organisation. Unarguably.

If you cannot remove the people in charge of something there is no democracy. The reality of how the EU operates means you cannot remove those people.

For people in the U.K. with our one elected chamber, the mish mash that is the HoL, lack of checks and balances and serious issues around devolution (West Lothian question) to point the finger and criticise democratic practice in another organisation is more than ironic.

I make two points in response to this.

First, that the EU itself is an enormous fudge. It has to be. A slimmed down version (ie, a commission comprised of each member state's head of government) would obviously be completely unelected. The alternative (a directly elected parliament that could form a European government with all the normal functions of government) would be too controversial. So it is somewhere in between.

Second, the UK constitution is very simple and very flexible. Ultimately it's that sovereignty resides in the Westminster parliament, which can make whatever law it chooses.

It's a very successful system that has been adopted by former British colonies and has worked just as successfully there as in the UK. It's also extremely adaptable, and has allowed for the evolution of the UK to deal with issues as they have come about. In recent years, that has involved devolution, which has been very successful and is considered democratic as it has taken lawmaking closer to the people of Scotland. But if this is so, the evolution upwards of lawmaking to Brussels is very problematic.

Every country has its constitutional fudges. Sometimes they are best. Compare how the UK government enabled an independence referendum for Scotland with how the Spanish government has handled Catalonia. The Spanish government was legally unable to recognise the result of any referendum there because the Spanish constitution prevented it.

I really despair of the contempt people in the UK demonstrate towards the institution that has done more than any other to keep democracy alive in the darkest days of the 20th century. It's not easy to create civil institutions that strong. In the Parliament at Westminster the UK has one of the deepest rooted democratic institutions in the world. The UK should stop taking its civil institutions for granted, and should stop assuming that they're better overseas because they generally aren't. The UK has an extremely high standards of public administration. It shouldn't be left to utter idiots like Johnson and Farage to point this out.

@TomPinch Even if you points hold water - and they don't - you are arguing about the form of democracy. The EU is democratic you just think the processes should be different. Other countries have different systems as does the EU that does not make them more or less democratic just different.

The European Parliament is elected by a PR system - we use similar systems to elect MPs to the HoC so your point is...?

EU parliament can not initiate legislation. Indeed legislation is initiated in different places in different democratic systems so your point is..?

The Council of Ministers is compromised of elected officials. So a Ministers for agriculture is elected and then appointed. They are representatives of elected governments so your point is...?

In the U.K. we vote for named individuals other democratic countries use different electoral systems all of which are democratic so your point is...?

The HoC is more democratic. Oh for fucks sake don't be a moron. I can't even be polite anymore. For a start can you quantify democracy? If you can the HoC will be at the bottom of anybody's list.

The point about the HoL is that the U.K. is very unusual in that we have only one legislative chamber with effective power making the U.K. an 'elective dictatorship'.

If you can not remove the people in charge that is not democracy yet you have just agreed that does not apply to the ECJ so your point is ...?

The U.K. does not have a written constitution. Although you do seem to agree that parliament is sovereign something many levers dispute. Our unwritten constitution is one long fudge so to fling that as a criticism is either ironic or ignorant, so your point is ..?

The U.K. system with it's FPTP system and lack or representation and a real voice is one of the reasons for Brexit. People are unheard and ignored so they cry out over Brexit.

Just because it is not the same as the U.K. does not mean it is undemocratic. 'Different' and 'foreign' does not mean wrong and bad.

Even if you points hold water - and they don't

Such an appeal to authority, followed by fudging of language with this

EU parliament can not initiate legislation

The EU equivalent of our HOC is the European commission, either both is unelected, or both is democratic, you're trying to play fast and loose with an appeal to authority

@Justanotherlurker

I'm really not fudging and you really are confused.

The Commission is not a legislative chamber. It is categorically not the equivalent to the HoC.

The Commission is the equivalent of the civil service.

The legislative chamber in the EU is the EU Parliament and it can not initiate legislation due to the nature of the EU. It debates, adapts and votes on legislation.

The nature being - it is not a national legislature - it can only enact certain legislation, the legislation it can enact is tightly controlled so it does not overstep its boundaries.

Now you can debate the merits of this and most people believe restricting EU legislation is a good thing. Most proponents of the EU think restricting EU legislation is a good thing.

Do you think widening the scope of EU legislation is a good thing? I don't.

You can debate the merits of widening the scope of the EU but the fundamental point remains the EU is a democratic organisation.

I'm really not fudging and you really are confused

I'm not, you brought in the HOC as a comparison, we have the same democratic power in electing junker as we do for any peer, very little. Considering that the EU model is a top down approach where the commission is the body to propose legislation and our Meps vote for or against is vastly different to us electing a government that is overseen by the hoc, the 'undemocratic' is generally referring to that IMO, and the whole movement of reform from within is based on. You trying to obsfucate and say that the EU doesn't initiate legislation is fudging

@Justanotherlurker

You say "You trying to obsfucate and say that the EU doesn't initiate legislation is fudging"

The EU parliament does not propose legislation. The Commission proposes legislation. These are both facts no obfuscation.

Most people think this controls the remit of the EU.

The Head of the Commission will not be elected in the same way we don't elect civil servants. This is not undemocratic. We don't elect senior civil servants in the U.K. It is exactly the same.

In the U.K. we elect MPs not governments. I made a reference in relation to the HoC as the HoC is often regarded as an 'elective dictatorship' with few checks and balances. It is far from ideal and is not widely regarded as a model of democratic good practice, quite the reverse.

You seem to be saying that as legislation can not be proposed by the Parliament the institution as a whole is 'undemocratic'. Clearly having an issue with one part of the process does not make the whole process undemocratic.

You dislike the form of democracy and you seem to want to widen the remit and jurisdiction of the EU. This is a bizarre argument for a leaver to make.

You have an issue with one aspect of the process, this does not make the whole process undemocratic.

Legislation- why do some posters care so much about a few very limited powers?

The EU only has a very limited remit of areas where it can legislate anyway. The member states share legislation only in areas that were delegated by agreement. It's food safety, agriculture, environment and some social legislation ie basic worker's rights.

Not only did we always have complete control over 99.3% of expenditure but we made all our own laws in most big areas too. We always did. We are completely responsible domestically over health, pensions, individual taxation, local government, defence, policing,crime, punishment, education, fiscal policy, property, inheritance, marriage, planning, succession, estates, company law etc etc

Why do people get so worked up about a few shared food safety regs etc , but don't get worked up about the prospect of lowering standards to get a US trade deal?

Before anyone says food and environment regs equal loss of sovereignty, the Withdrawal Bill white paper expressly admitted we retained complete sovereignty throughout. We did.

Bizarrely this government (by changing the rules about what individual ministers can do with statutory instruments) is removing due Parliamentary process over to individuals, but few seem to care about that.

It's weird.

The EU parliament does not propose legislation. The Commission proposes legislation. These are both facts no obfuscation

It is obfuscation though, the 'EU' does initiate legislation, it's just the commission not parliament, you was initially trying to gotcha and pick up on exact language, it's fudging 101. To still try and compare them with our civil service is just as missleading unless you can come up with a UK comparison of junker.

You have an issue with one aspect of the process, this does not make the whole process undemocratic

I have never said that, it was you who unironically used the term dictatorship in reference to the HOC

Legislation- why do some posters care so much about a few very limited powers

I can't believe someone has posted this in good faith, I can almost guarantee that you are so anti Tory you cannot see the irony in this statement.

I will add to this and state that you believe the Tories want to turn the NHS into an American model

Look at my history as a poster if you don't believe I'm genuine.Are you? I am anti the current Tories, but more importantly I am also pro actual facts about the EU.

The reality is that all EU member countries (including us) only delegated the ability to make shared rules in certain limited subject areas. I note that justanother didn't answer my question, just queried my veracity rather than actually answering my point.

I didn't answer your question because with such an apparent understanding of the EU and our standing in it you come out with hyperbolic shite like this:

Why do people get so worked up about a few shared food safety regs etc , but don't get worked up about the prospect of lowering standards to get a US trade deal?

To top your comment off would be to full on anti Tory/neolibralirasim

I suspect however that you are just treating this as a left/right issue, hence why I haven't really answered you

29million did not vote to leave - a new vote with facts and parameters for the decision is needed

It's really not very polite to call another poster's comments shite.

In fact it's true. You just don't like hearing the truth as the facts undermine your feelings. In fact all member states only ever delegated shared powers in very limited areas.

Many Leave politicians and the media like to blame the EU for our ills. In fact we made all our own laws in most big areas. Like France, Germany etc we always did.

We are completely responsible domestically over health, pensions, individual taxation, local government, defence, policing,crime, punishment, education, fiscal policy, property, inheritance, marriage, planning, succession, estates, company law etc etc

We only delegated shared regulatory powers to the EU over food and environmental standards plus some basic human and workers' rights. I'm all for debate but why not research things properly and post accurately rather than making generalised inaccurate references. Or perhaps the truth doesn't support your feelings on the issue?

What are you looking forward precisely after 29 March? Basically the choices are between:

1. Taking back control of 0.7% of £ GDP in our EU membership fee.

1. Taking back control of some delegated shared minimum workers' rights, food and environment regs.

1. Taking back control of how many EU immigrants come here, and increasing the non EU migrants from India, Pakistan etc instead .

1. A combination of all 3.

The only thing I'm looking forward to is us all being taught a lesson for our arrogant hubristic mistake. I'm looking forward being taught a lesson, the hard way.

@Justanotherlurker

I used the term "elective dictatorship" it's a quote. That's why I used quotation marks. A quote from Quintin Hogg/ Lord Hailsham he was a conservative politician and wrote widely about the British Constitution. He is very highly regarded, blame the Tory politician not me if you don't like the term.

Sir Mark Sedwill is Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service. The U.K. civil service is much more low key than in other countries and the EU but the function is very similar. He is the equivalent of Junker. Just because you haven't heard of him does not mean I am not correct.

Obfuscation means to make something unclear. I don't know how I could have been clearer: the EU can propose legislation, it is done via the Commission rather than the EU parliament. This is done to limit the type of legislation the EU proposes. It is a limit on the power of the EU. It stops enthusiastic MEPs proposing legislation that is outside their remit.

Like many Brexit supporters you see anything that is different to the U.K. as undemocratic. There are many forms of democracy, all equally valid. The EU has a different system but it is democratic.

Exact language btw is quite important in constitutional politics a bit like the law.