The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

The UK government doesn't appear to know what it wants from the negotiations either. 

It is going to be a train wreck. 

It does. It just knows it can't have it.

[HanoiVillan]

It's difficult to say what 'the UK government' wants since it is comprised of different people with differing agendas, but 'the less difference to today the better' is pretty commonly-held.  

[PompeyVillan]

Single market access, with no freedom of movement and none of the Brussels 'red tape' and regulations that stop wealthy people exploiting the poor. 

 

[Enda]

1 hour ago, PompeyVillan said:

Single market access, with no freedom of movement and none of the Brussels 'red tape' and regulations that stop wealthy people exploiting the poor. 

[peterms]

 

[BOF]

Brexit Supporter Voted To “Take Back Control” But Can’t Name One EU Law

 

N.B. The video is within the link above   Check it out.

 

Quote

Brexit Supporter Voted To “Take Back Control” But Can’t Name James One EU Law

20 June 2017, 13:22

Shane in Southall said he voted Leave because of the laws the European Union had imposed on Britain - but when James O’Brien asked him to name at least one, well, he simply couldn’t.

The LBC caller said he wasn’t happy with how the bloc had transformed from the original European Economic Community to a “superstate”.

“We’ve given more power to Europe… they basically decide our laws and what we’re going to do,” Shane said.

But what are the specific laws he doesn’t like having to obey? That’s the question James repeatedly asked over and over again.

“To tell you the truth I can’t, not at this moment in time,” the stumped LBC caller responded after being repeatedly pressured to name at least one.

As the entertaining conversation continued, James wanted to see whether he could change Shane’s mind on remaining inside the EU.

James asked: “Would it be better if every member had the power to veto any single item of legislation, would that make you happier?

“If every single member could veto every single bill in the European Parliament. If every member country had the power to veto anything significant?”

The idea seemed to please the Brexit supporter as he replied: “That would be something, yes.”

Unbeknown to Shane there was one catch. Britain can already do that as a member of the EU.

Watch the brilliant phone call in full above.

 

[markavfc40]

6 minutes ago, BOF said:

Brexit Supporter Voted To “Take Back Control” But Can’t Name One EU Law

 

N.B. The video is within the link above   Check it out.

 

 

That is brilliant. What a prat. You can see why some think that this decision shouldn't have been put in the hands of the general public.

[BOF]

Just now, markavfc40 said:

That is brilliant. What a prat. You can see why some think that this decision shouldn't have been put in the hands of the general public.

It's also why soundbites and catchphrases are so important in politics.  People often cling to a cliché that means **** all in reality.  But it sounds good.  You're right though.  Some things should not be in the hands of gen pop.  You'd almost say it's why they hired a government dedicated to knowing this stuff FOR them in the first place.

[ml1dch]

13 minutes ago, BOF said:

You'd almost say it's why they hired a government dedicated to knowing this stuff FOR them in the first place.

There is one pretty significant flaw in the above though, which probably doesn't need spelling out.

[Enda]

Obviously Brexit man above is a good example an uninformed voter, but he was a teeny bit tricked in the interview.

“If every single member could veto every single bill in the European Parliament. If every member country had the power to veto anything significant?”

This is mostly true. All bills on very important issues (taxes, foreign policy, etc) require unanimity, i.e. any one country can veto. But most legislation is passed by qualified majority voting, and there *are* some areas that are done by QMV that are "significant", e.g. environmental policy. So Malta/Ireland/Germany can't veto just anything - thankfully, otherwise nothing would get done - but Malta/Ireland/Germany can veto anything crucial.

So the distinction is "crucial" rather than "significant", which I admit is sort of splitting hairs, but still. The U.K. can be outvoted on some things.

[chrisp65]

Queen trolls Prime Minister with EU themed hat.

[peterms]

6 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

That is brilliant. What a prat. You can see why some think that this decision shouldn't have been put in the hands of the general public.

That's a bit unfair, Mark.

He may not know any of the detail (haven't listened, happy to accept that), but the proposition that what was an economic union has been transformed into something quite different, with more powers and more far-reaching powers, is correct.  The treaty of Lisbon now entrenches neoliberalism as the status quo of the EU.  There is one direction of travel,  unless crises force a temporary stay; ever closer union.  Things we were assured were not under consideration, like an EU army, suddenly bob up as well-formed plans.

It's not a rebuttal to ask people to quote laws.  I would bet plenty of MEPs can't quote the chapter and verse of many EU directives, and they are paid quite a bit to engage with this body very directly.

You haven't suggested it, but it's worth saying that not all concern about the EU and what it does is founded in narrowminded nationalism, xenophobia, and racism.  Though some certainly is.

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

That's a bit unfair, Mark.....

Yes I'll accept that mate I just think having gone to the effort of phoning up a radio station to say why he voted out he should have at least been prepared to back up his reasons by, as the presenter said, putting a little meat on the bones.

[peterms]

7 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Yes I'll accept that mate I just think having gone to the effort of phoning up a radio station to say why he voted out he should have at least been prepared to back up his reasons by, as the presenter said, putting a little meat on the bones.

That's fair.  Though having listened to a few phone-ins, they are mostly bones, and very little meat. 

[Nicho]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

 but the proposition that what was an economic union has been transformed into something quite different, with more powers and more far-reaching powers, is correct. 

I think the response is relvevant, no matter how it's changed if you can't actually name anything you don't like about it then it's not relevant to bring up the change.

The details matter, whether the leavers that I know are representative is a different matter but all will same something they are unable to back up with fact.

its a much more tangled web than anyone ever made out. 

[chrisp65]

I heard we're going to get rid of all the EU red tape that stops small builders building in Cornwall.

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I heard we're going to get rid of all the EU red tape that stops small builders building in Cornwall.

Red tape, or as we should start calling it, "public protection".

[peterms]

8 hours ago, Nicho said:

its a much more tangled web than anyone ever made out. 

On that point, there's a piece of work here

 which discusses that.  Summary:

Quote

    The European Union and its member states have faced almost a decade of political tumult. If the EU is to move beyond crisis management towards political and economic renewal, a prerequisite is to understand better the foundation of public and ‘elite’ attitudes to the EU, and where these align and diverge.
   

This paper is based on a unique survey conducted between December 2016 and February 2017 in 10 countries that polled two groups: a representative sample of 10,000 members of the public; and a sample of over 1,800 of Europe’s ‘elite’, individuals in positions of influence from politics, the media, business and civil society at local, regional, national and European levels.
   

The data reveal a continent split along three lines. First, there is a divide between elites and the public. There is alignment between the two groups in their attitudes to, among other things, EU solidarity, EU democracy and a sense of European identity. However, the data also show an important divide in general attitudes, beliefs and life experiences. The elite are more likely to experience the benefits of EU integration and are more liberal and optimistic. Meanwhile, there is simmering discontent within the public, large sections of whom view the EU in negative terms, want to see it return some powers to member states, and feel anxious over the effects of immigration. Only 34% of the public feel they have benefited from the EU, compared with 71% of the elite. A majority of the public (54%) think their country was a better place to live 20 years ago.
   

Second, within the public, there is a pronounced divide between more liberal and authoritarian-minded groups, particularly on issues of identity. This divide plays a much stronger role than other measures, such as economic status or experience of social hardship, in shaping attitudes towards the EU. The political challenges resulting from this divide are likely to persist for many years, even after economic growth is restored and sustained.
   

Third, there is a lack of consensus among the elite on important questions about the EU’s direction. While the elite overwhelmingly feel they have benefited from the EU, they are far from united in their attitudes to further integration. Contrary to assumptions that the elite are pro-integration, 28% support the status quo, 37% think the EU should get more powers, and 31% think the EU should return powers to member states. More oppose than support the eventual creation of a ‘United States of Europe’, although there is support for deeper eurozone integration.
   

The survey makes clear that EU politics has moved from a period in which it was mediating between an integrationist political class and an occasionally sceptical public to one in which there is a more mixed picture among both groups. The findings have important implications for the debate on Europe’s future.
  

  There is a reservoir of support among the public and the elite for a union based on solidarity. For example, 77% of the elite and 50% of the public think that richer member states should financially support poorer member states, while only 12% of the elite and 18% of the public disagree. This does not simplify the challenges of building a fairer, more cohesive union, but it underlines the belief that an EU marked by very different levels of income and economic performance should still be based on solidarity.
   

Divides among the elite about the future of the EU leave space for new ideas and vision. There is no consensus among the elite about the balance of powers between the EU and member states, or about a federalist vision. This shows the need for political leadership able to articulate a longer-term vision that might command the support of a majority of elites, as well as of the public. The improving European economy and relative political stability that could follow this year’s elections in France and Germany may create a once-in-a-generation opportunity for a process of political and economic renewal. Such a process appears more likely given the election of President Emmanuel Macron in France, while the survey shows on balance positive views of German leadership. 48% of the public and 62% of the elite think Germany plays a positive role in the EU. 28% of the public and 23% of the elite disagree.
   

Europe needs to move beyond a binary debate. The absence of a clear majority view on the way forward requires an integration agenda that recognizes the diversity of perspectives on Europe’s future, and moves beyond crude notions of ‘more’ or ‘less’ Europe. Many who are broadly content with the union’s performance do not want to transfer more powers to the EU. A substantial number among the public and the elite feel they have benefited from the EU, but also want powers to return to member states. Genuine political renewal in Europe will require a more open, imaginative and even conflictual debate.
   

Strategies for the EU’s future that emphasize a process of multi-speed integration among specific states ignore the fact that important fault lines cut across the continent as a whole. This suggests the need for a flexible approach to future integration that is built on more than a notion of an EU core and periphery.
 

   Divides within the public are as significant as divides between states, and will require different strategies if they are to be addressed. Those who wish to bolster public support for the EU cannot focus only on strengthening its role in improving the economic welfare of EU citizens. Leaders of EU institutions, as much as national politicians, need to invest greater effort in addressing the gap between their own attitudes and those of their citizens towards deeper social issues – such as fears over loss of national identity, the pressures of immigration, and perceived unequal access to opportunity. Debates over the future direction of the EU need to be reframed so that they address concerns about a perceived threat to national traditions and cultures as much as they respond to anxieties over economic performance.

 

 

[peterms]

11 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Queen trolls Prime Minister with EU themed hat.

EU joins in the trolling:

 

[peterms]