EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Bromley boy]

Because sometimes other people have better ideas?

And these shadowy “other people” have their own agendas. What will happen if the EU starts dictating policies you don’t agree with?

I find it extraordinary and depressing that many posters on here attach so little importance to democratic self determination.

 

[HSTEd]

Yet the current Government has greenlit Hinckley C, but also has just stymied a tidal barrage in Swansea Bay.
So they have the opportunity to do what you want to see already.

Really?
Do I see the government using gilt issues to purchase generating plant outright?

Rather than simply pouring public money into the pockets of financiers?
The EU forbids using government money to purchase generating plant unless the money is lent to an arm's length operator at "commercial" rates - in other words it is effectively forbidden.

It also forbids a vertically integrated electricity utility.

 

[northwichcat]

Again, the content of the laws isn’t the issue. It’s the fact they were initiated by the EU rather than Westminster.

And what if the extremists end up in the EU? If extremists get into power in the U.K. that will be because we will have elected them through the democratic process. I don’t want an external body fettering the discretion of parliament.

Taking what you say literally you want civil servants to be got rid of as well, as well as the House of Lords. Ever heard the expression 'fix your own house first'? We do at least elect MEPs.

If extremists get in to the EU we could veto any new laws they pass or we could trigger article 50. Given one party of extremists won't ever have full control over the EU it's unlikely to be as damaging.

 

[WelshBluebird]

What will happen if the EU starts dictating policies you don’t agree with?

First of all, for now, we are part of the EU, that means we as a country still get say on EU law. Indeed until Brexit we actually had a pretty damn powerful position, so it wasn't "the EU dictating policies" it was "the UK helping craft EU laws". But even then, we have a veto. So if the EU starts dictating policies we don't like, then we veto it. Indeed that was our position on the possibility of a "EU army" (I use quotes because in reality it is a lot more complicated than that) or Turkey joining the EU - they never going to happen whilst we were part of the EU if the UK didn't want them to.

While we are at it I would like to repeal the human rights act (seperate from the EU) and withdraw from the ECHR. It’s essentially just a criminals’ charter.

Or for gods sake no it isn't. It protects the human rights of, you know, humans. You could end up being accused of something one day and then you'll be hoping to god we treat people fairly regardless of what they are accused of.

 

[Howardh]

But not all of them.

In any case, why is EU “law” necessary when we have our own parliament? The whole thing has been blown out of all proportion.

I simply want all laws governing the U.K. to be originated by the U.K. legislature/judiciary.

While we are at it I would like to repeal the human rights act (seperate from the EU) and withdraw from the ECHR. It’s essentially just a criminals’ charter.

I may need that. Long story short, my care team (safguarding from the council) are insisting mum - who is perfectly capable of walking but they won't let her as they cant find a method to get her to stand from sitting, are forcing her to be seated all day (often strapped in) and If I try to move her they will go to court to take her away from me.
I think they are over-reacting and denying her her human right to freedom, movement etc. It's in the hands of my legal team, if it doesn't get resolved ultimately the ECHR would be my final backstop. You want to take that away from me?? Why??

 

[EM2]

And these shadowy “other people” have their own agendas. What will happen if the EU starts dictating policies you don’t agree with?

You use your veto.

 

[Howardh]

And these shadowy “other people” have their own agendas. What will happen if the EU starts dictating policies you don’t agree with?

I find it extraordinary and depressing that many posters on here attach so little importance to democratic self determination.

EU - UK Parliament. dictated laws? Ha, it all pales into insignificance when your local council withdraws buses, won't fix the pavements, closes old folk's homes etc etc. The UK's biggest political problem is having one government and a local council that's the opposite - regardless of colours. Eg why would a Labour council spend locally, and make the Tories look good? And vice-versa, why would a Tory council pour in cash to make a Labou government look good?

To me the hatred of the EU is purely abstract when whe have much more tangible issues on our doorsteps.

 

[Bromley boy]

Taking what you say literally you want civil servants to be got rid of as well.

The civil service is accountable to parliament and to the electorate through them.

If extremists get in to the EU we could veto any new laws they pass or we could trigger article 50. Given one party of extremists won't ever have full control over the EU it's unlikely to be as damaging.

I’d rather not take the risk.

First of all, for now, we are part of the EU, that means we as a country still get say on EU law. Indeed until Brexit we actually had a pretty damn powerful position, so it wasn't "the EU dictating policies" it was "the UK helping craft EU laws". But even then, we have a veto. So if the EU starts dictating policies we don't like, then we veto it. Indeed that was our position on the possibility of a "EU army" (I use quotes because in reality it is a lot more complicated than that) or Turkey joining the EU - they never going to happen whilst we were part of the EU if the UK didn't want them to.



Or for gods sake no it isn't. It protects the human rights of, you know, humans. You could end up being accused of something one day and then you'll be hoping to god we treat people fairly regardless of what they are accused of.

The possibility, however remote, of Turkey joining the EU and of an EU army are two excellent reasons to leave.

I reject any notion of “EU law”. The only law I wish to govern this country is that made in parliament. It really is as simple as that!

Re the human rights nonsense, the arbiter of what is “fair” should only be the democratically elected parliament, not a judge in Strasbourg.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The possibility, however remote, of Turkey joining the EU and of an EU army are two excellent reasons to leave.

The point is that they are more likely to happen with us out than in.
Once again, we did have a position of power in the EU. Despite what the right wing media love to spread. We certainly were not beholden to everything to EU dictated to us as you keep saying.

I reject any notion of “EU law”. The only law I wish to govern this country is that made in parliament. It really is as simple as that!

Which is the case now.
Any EU law that we like, we pass into our own law through our own parliament.
Any EU law we don't like, we use our opt out.
All that is really happening is our parliament is taking essentially suggestions from a third party. Something it does anyway when back benchers suggest laws, or when communities debate specific things that have been suggested by the public or organisations (like allowing safe standing at football etc).

Re the human rights nonsense, the arbiter of what is “fair” should only be the democratically elected parliament, not a judge in Strasbourg.

And as you keep suggesting, what happens when extremists take control our our parliament and decide they want to deport people who are in this country legally?

 

[Bromley boy]

I may need that. Long story short, my care team (safguarding from the council) are insisting mum - who is perfectly capable of walking but they won't let her as they cant find a method to get her to stand from sitting, are forcing her to be seated all day (often strapped in) and If I try to move her they will go to court to take her away from me.
I think they are over-reacting and denying her her human right to freedom, movement etc. It's in the hands of my legal team, if it doesn't get resolved ultimately the ECHR would be my final backstop. You want to take that away from me?? Why??

You have my sympathies, that sounds like an awful situation.

It’s not about taking something away, it’s about saying the U.K. government (which we have the power to elect) should be the sole arbiter of law. It shouldn’t be necessary for you to have to “fall back” on the ECHR in the first place.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It shouldn’t be necessary for you to have to “fall back” on the ECHR in the first place.

But when the UK government fails to actually apply the law? Or when they act in a manor that is illegal under international law? Or when they simply take a turn for the worst and start acting like a far right racist monstrosity (like has been case with disability benefit and the Windrush cases recently)?

 

[AM9]

So first of all none of that explains how you would benefit from a no deal Brexit (rather than it just not negatively affect you).

Secondly, you do realise a no deal Brexit means things like no flights between the EU and the UK, visas required for travel, chaos at ports which could easily lead to food and fuel shortages if not dealt with right, etc etc?
You say "even the most incompetant exit from the EU is unlikely to take us there" but a no deal Brexit is the exact thing that would.

My comment related specifically to a Conservative no-deal exit which would be if the extreme right-wing of the party won over. An administration un-trammeled by either EU moderation or much change of losing power in the short term would carry out their 'bonfire of red tape' starting with working hours limits. Many of these laws would be locked into the books as soon as possible possibly in ways that would make it difficult to remove them.
The falling pound would put a natural upward pressure on essential commodity goods, (which forms the bulk of lower income group expenditure) whereas non-essential lifestyle and luxury goods would in some cases fall as there would be less competition to buy them. Similarly, restaurants and other leisure activities would be more accessible and in many cases cheaper. I'm sure that there wouls be quite a few (maybe some here) who would welcome their pound to go further even if it was at the expense of the poor.

 

[HSTEd]

You use your veto.

Except the veto is no longer effective against most EU directives. We now have Qualified Majority Voting for most decisions.

And it also means we essentially can't change things later.
So if one government gets in and agrees to EU laws, they essentially can never be changed.

 

[Howardh]

You have my sympathies, that sounds like an awful situation.

It’s not about taking something away, it’s about saying the U.K. government (which we have the power to elect) should be the sole arbiter of law. It shouldn’t be necessary for you to have to “fall back” on the ECHR in the first place.

Thanks - I agree with the sentiment but it could concentrate the minds of the UK courts knowing that theire ruling could be overturned higher up, so they are more likely (currently) to go with the common man - knowing that whatever they say could be overturned, so why say it?

I think - someone will clarify - our courts do send cases to Europe if they can't find a solution - think one was the TV landlady, and the other that poor little lad who was dying. Might be wrong - someone will correct.

But the golden rule is, you don't know what you're missing until you need it!

 

[dosxuk]

The possibility, however remote, of Turkey joining the EU and of an EU army are two excellent reasons to leave.

One of which we gave consistently used our veto to prevent, which has made it so far impossible to implement. The other, we were a leading proponent of, and remember, one of the first countries we approached after the Brexit vote about future trade agreements was Turkey! With the long standing disagreements between Turkey and the EU, the chances of them joining have actually decreased now we're leaving!

I reject any notion of “EU law”. The only law I wish to govern this country is that made in parliament. It really is as simple as that!

What about all the other laws enacted as a result of our membership of international bodies? Like the ITU allocating which frequencies we can use for mobile phones, satellites and the emergency services? We live in a global economy, reliant on international agreement and cooperation, it's completely unrealistic for individual nations to just go their own way. Even North Korea has some of their laws set by outside entities!

 

[Bromley boy]

Except the veto is no longer effective against most EU directives. We now have Qualified Majority Voting for most decisions.

And it also means we essentially can't change things later.
So if one government gets in and agrees to EU laws, they essentially can never be changed.

Indeed. The EU is a fundamentally sinister entity. It’s like something out of a George Orwell novel.

https://euobserver.com/institutional/139630

Among them is a plan to prevent EU states from using veto powers to block legislation in areas that usually demand an unanimous agreement, like in taxation.

Taxation is often seen as a national prerogative where some EU states like Luxembourg and Malta have managed to prevent EU-level reforms given their veto powers.

But the EU commission is now pushing for a qualified majority voting based on article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty for legislation on "internal market matters" in an effort to break such deadlocks.

 

[northwichcat]

The possibility, however remote, of Turkey joining the EU

Given the current Conservative Turkish government seems to be handing out Turkish citizenship to Syrians who fill out a form (apparently because Syrians are more likely to vote for Conservative politicians than Turks) I don't think it would be a good idea to effectively have freedom of movement all the way from Syria to Calais. However, that would be a problem for us whether or not we are in the EU - the end of freedom of movement at Calais is why illegal immigrants take dangerous risks at crossing the English Channel. If we're in the EU Turkey is unlikely to join as we would have to approve the move - if we're not and Turkey applies who knows what may happen.

 

[Howardh]

Indeed. The EU is a fundamentally sinister entity. It’s like something out of a George Orwell novel.

https://euobserver.com/institutional/139630

Isn't Mogg's plan a UK haven where there's low tax for the rich and high tax for everyone else? But then again I haven't the foggiest what topline Brexiter's plans are, except that they'll be just fine, thank you very much.

 

[Howardh]

Given the current Conservative Turkish government seems to be handing out Turkish citizenship to Syrians who fill out a form (apparently because Syrians are more likely to vote for Conservative politicians than Turks) I don't think it would be a good idea to effectively have freedom of movement all the way from Syria to Calais. However, that would be a problem for us whether or not we are in the EU - the end of freedom of movement at Calais is why illegal immigrants take dangerous risks at crossing the English Channel. If we're in the EU Turkey is unlikely to join as we would have to approve the move - if we're not and Turkey applies who knows what may happen.

Cyprus and Greece will veto any moves to include Turkey in the EU. It's got an awful lot of act getting together to get anywhere near joining, never mind the invasion of Cyprus and it's economy...it's human rights record is plenty bad enough. Ukraine would join sooner.

 

[EM2]

Except the veto is no longer effective against most EU directives. We now have Qualified Majority Voting for most decisions.

Where we have the largest vote weighting along with Germany, so have a very good chance of blocking directives that we don't wish to support.

And it also means we essentially can't change things later.
So if one government gets in and agrees to EU laws, they essentially can never be changed.

Except by introducing new legislation to the EU, which we can do while we are members.

 

[HSTEd]

Where we have the largest vote weighting along with Germany, so have a very good chance of blocking directives that we don't wish to support.

Which is still a very small part of the vote available. It is most certainly not a veto.

You need at least three other countries to support you to stop something.

Except by introducing new legislation to the EU, which we can do while we are members.

So an anti-Thatcherite government would have to hope that a Thatcherite-dominated continent will go along with their proposed changes, which they wouldn't.
The whole structure of the EU is designed so that it is nearly impossible to make it change direction.

 

[YorkshireBear]

All this being dictated to by the EU is laughable. The UK is one of the best countries in the world at writing standards and laws, the EU uses the UK to write a lot. For example, a lot of the farming laws the EU releases are all written by the UK. Why because I've met the person who writes them.

So thankfully Brexit will mean the UK will stop putting its onerous standards on the rest of the EU.

 

[Bromley boy]

But when the UK government fails to actually apply the law? Or when they act in a manor that is illegal under international law? Or when they simply take a turn for the worst and start acting like a far right racist monstrosity (like has been case with disability benefit and the Windrush cases recently)?

There is no such thing as “international law” in any meaningful sense -it’s just a collection of treaty obligations.

I reject the notion that criticisms of the U.K. government should be dealt with by appealing to some “higher” judicial authority, which is not democratically accountable. If the system needs changing then we should change it rather relying on unelected bureaucrats overseas.

As for the windrush scandal, what I find rather strange is how people claiming to have lived in the U.K. for decades are unable to provide any evidence of this, and haven’t bothered to apply for citizenship and a passport.

 

[Bromley boy]

how many EU directives and laws actually negatively affect you on a daily basis?

I’ve just thought of one. I had to pay the CAA £100ish to convert my pilot’s licence to a EASA license.

The general consensus in the aviation community is that EASA is a bureaucratic, costly, nightmare with no real advantages.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There is no such thing as “international law” in any meaningful sense -it’s just a collection of treaty obligations.

You may want to talk to my friend who is doing a PHD in international law then and lecturing the subject.

I reject the notion that criticisms of the U.K. government should be dealt with by appealing to some “higher” judicial authority, which is not democratically accountable. If the system needs changing then we should change it rather relying on unelected bureaucrats overseas.

Except, and I am sad to say it, but this country is selfish. We generally don't care it something doesn't affect us. Why else have such scandals been allowed to happen with pretty much no consequence?
There needs to be some kind of higher authority because, to be blunt, we are not good enough.

As for the windrush scandal, what I find rather strange is how people claiming to have lived in the U.K. for decades are unable to provide any evidence of this, and haven’t bothered to apply for citizenship and a passport.

Presumably because it wasn't an issue? Paper records have long since been thrown away, citizenship costs money (and if you didn't think you need it why on earth would you even bother) and you'd only bother with a passport if you wanted to travel abroad.

I’ve just thought of one. I had to pay the CAA £100ish to convert my pilot’s licence to a EASA license.

The general consensus in the aviation community is that EASA is a bureaucratic, costly, nightmare with no real advantages.

Oh you mean the same EASA that the government want us to stay in after Brexit because it is not related to just EU member countries?

 

[Bromley boy]

You may want to talk to my friend who is doing a PHD in international law then and lecturing the subject.

As a qualified solicitor myself, it’s an interesting question.

If you ask your friend I’m sure he will acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between international “law” and domestic law. It’s a contentious area - my personal view is that treaty obligations which operate more by consent than by obligation are not “hard law” in the truest sense.

Except, and I am sad to say it, but this country is selfish. We generally don't care it something doesn't affect us. Why else have such scandals been allowed to happen with pretty much no consequence?
There needs to be some kind of higher authority because, to be blunt, we are not good enough.

That’s where you and I fundamentally disagree. I want this county to put its own interests first. If something is wrong in this country it should be for our own elected government to deal with it, without recourse to a foreign body which will have its own agenda.

Presumably because it wasn't an issue? Paper records have long since been thrown away, citizenship costs money (and if you didn't think you need it why on earth would you even bother) and you'd only bother with a passport if you wanted to travel abroad.

It seems very odd to me that people can have lived in this country for so long with no evidence. It smacks of laziness/inattention of the individuals concerned.

Oh you mean the same EASA that the government want us to stay in after Brexit because it is not related to just EU member countries?

Well I don’t necessarily agree with that approach - but there may be no choice now - that doesn’t change the fact EASA is a bloody mess.

 

[WelshBluebird]

As a qualified solicitor myself, it’s an interesting question.

If you ask your friend I’m sure he will acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between international “law” and domestic law. It’s a contentious area - my personal view is that treaty obligations which operate more by consent than by obligation are not “hard law” in the truest sense.

Put it like this, international law is what enabled the Nuremberg trials, is what is used as a deterrent against humanitarian atrocities, etc etc. To suggest that it shouldn't exist because no national should be subjected to the "control" of anyone but its own governing structure is dangerous to say the least.

That’s where you and I fundamentally disagree. I want this county to put its own interests first.

But it doesn't. The people in power put their own interests first (e.g. - various MP's who happen to be landlords too voting against bills that would make renting out poor properties more difficult) or trample on others when it suits them (look at how disabled people are treated by this government if you need an example of why we need a higher body).

It seems very odd to me that people can have lived in this country for so long with no evidence. It smacks of laziness/inattention of the individuals concerned.

if you asked my parents, who were born here, for evidence they have lived here decades ago, I am sure they would struggle too!
People don't keep records from that long ago.

Well I don’t necessarily agree with that approach - but there may be no choice now - that doesn’t change the fact EASA is a bloody mess.

But it isn't related to just the EU so isn't really relevant.

 

[northwichcat]

Cyprus and Greece will veto any moves to include Turkey in the EU. It's got an awful lot of act getting together to get anywhere near joining, never mind the invasion of Cyprus and it's economy...it's human rights record is plenty bad enough. Ukraine would join sooner.

True. Turkey would have to hand back Northern Cyprus before Cyprus or Greece would consider letting them join. Even then the damage caused by turning Orthodox Churches in to Mosques won't be undone.

 

[EM2]

It seems very odd to me that people can have lived in this country for so long with no evidence. It smacks of laziness/inattention of the individuals concerned.

They had a legal right to come to the UK. They were given no documents or paperwork.
Anyone who had arrived in the UK from a Commonwealth country before 1973 was granted an automatic right to permanently remain, unless they left the UK for more than two years. Since the right was automatic, many people in this category were never given, or asked to provide, documentary evidence of their right to remain either at that time, or in the following four decades, during which many continued to live and work in the UK, believing themselves to be British.

A clause in the 1999 Immigration Act specifically protected longstanding residents of the UK from Commonwealth countries from enforced removal. The clause was not transferred to 2014 immigration legislation. The clause was removed as Commonwealth citizens living in the UK before 1 January 1973 were "adequately protected from removal", according to a Home Office spokesperson.

Given all that, why would you think that you would need any evidence?

 

[Bromley boy]

Put it like this, international law is what enabled the Nuremberg trials, is what is used as a deterrent against humanitarian atrocities, etc etc. To suggest that it shouldn't exist because no national should be subjected to the "control" of anyone but its own governing structure is dangerous to say the least.



But it doesn't. The people in power put their own interests first (e.g. - various MP's who happen to be landlords too voting against bills that would make renting out poor properties more difficult) or trample on others when it suits them (look at how disabled people are treated by this government if you need an example of why we need a higher body).



if you asked my parents, who were born here, for evidence they have lived here decades ago, I am sure they would struggle too!
People don't keep records from that long ago.



But it isn't related to just the EU so isn't really relevant.

To be continued...

I’m sure we are all off to watch the match shortly. I hope you guys in wales are cheering England on