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

[Chindie]

19 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

What I'm trying to work out, and if someone can answer this please do not go on a pro/anti EU rant while doing so is the following;

It is beneficial for UK to trade with Italy (I hope we can all agree here). So what stops UK from agreeing a similar (if not better) deal after Brexit? As far as I can see, there are two possible answers:

1) Nothing. So a deal will be made sooner rather than later to benefit both countries.

2) The EU gets in the way and stops Italians from agreeing anything with the UK.

If 1) is true - great, party on. If 2) is true, why wouldn't Italy want to leave the EU to be able to make agreements on it's own terms if it is beneficial for it to do so?



 

The EU operates as a bloc. It uses the combined strength of its members to make deals. And it works. Internally the single market means trade between members is extremely easy, which benefits everyone. Externally the economic power of the mergers combined means they have far greater strength in negotiating deals globally than they would alone.

If members are allowed to make their own deals outside of the bloc, the whole thing falls apart. The single market stops working. Italy would, for example, possibly be able to import or export goods at a rate that gives them an advantage whilst also having all the advantages of the single market, which means they break it.

If Italy left the EU like we seem hell-bent on, it would leave the single market. That means Italy has trade barriers in place, be that straight up tariffs or, more importantly, non-tariff barriers, things like standards. This would make trade with its closest neighbours, which universally countries tend to trade most with, much more difficult, making them uncompetitive.

It couldn't do this on the basis of there not explicitly being a deal either. Say the Italy says to the UK - we want to keep buying jam from you so we'll set your jam at 0% tariff. Unfortunately the World Trade Organisation states that you must offer trade in the basis of the most favoured nation. This would mean Italy would be required to buy jam at 0% from everyone.

[Mic09]

8 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Surely because if all of the EU members were going around agreeing their own deals anyway then it would remove the benefit of being the EU as a whole.

 They get these deals for ALL members because other countries want to trade with the EU as a whole. The main attraction of that may be to be able to trade with the bigger economies within the EU. But that allows the other members to get the same benefits.

 If Britain and Italy and Germany etc were agreeing their own deals, then there would be no need for countries outside the EU to have a deal with the EU. Which would be fine for the few countries that could agree these deals on their own (if there were any that could get as good a deal as the EU), but it would leave the other members without these deals.

 So the EU doesn't allow these bells and whistle deals to be undertaken by individual members because it would be to the detriment of the EU as a whole. Either you deal with all of us or none of us.

It's a very interesting discussion because when you talk about the above, you have to take into consideration that each member state has it's own independent political/economic interests.

If Italy wants to agree a specific deal with the UK, great, as long as Germany, France and Sweden agree. If the EU as a majority objects, no deal can be done. This is due to the primacy of the EU law above any local member state laws. This means that independent interests of member states can be stopped by other members.

So, coming back to the beginning, Italy cannot agree anything with anyone without a permission (or a lack of objection) from Brussels.

Surely this is a major issue and should be considered within this discussion?

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Mic09

[StefanAVFC]

It's not Brussels dictating, how many times?

It's an agreement between all of the countries.

"You want to join us, follow the rules."

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

It's a very interesting discussion because when you talk about the above, you have to take into consideration that each member state has it's own independent political/economic interests.

If Italy wants to agree a specific deal with the UK, great, as long as Germany, France and Sweden agree. If the EU as a majority objects, no deal can be done. This is due to the primacy of the EU law above any local member state laws. This means that independent interests of member states can be stopped by other members.

So, coming back to the beginning, Italy cannot agree anything with anyone without a permission (or a lack of objection) from Brussels.

Surely this is a major issue and should be considered within this discussion?

 

Why do you keep saying Brussels?

It's a group agreement. It's common in lots of walks of life, not just trade in the EU.

You're twisting to make it sound like a dictatorship. It's a group agreement. Part of being in the group is abiding by the rules which are decide by all members to benefit all members.

 

You're talking like we're forced into these rules by some almighty dictator. We make the rules, we agree the rules, we abide by the rules and we benefit from the rules.

[ml1dch]

15 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

What is stopping UK from agreeing a tariff free bells and whistles deal with Italy post Brexit?

And if it is the EU doing so as you suggest, why does Brussels restrict what is beneficial for an individual member state?

The term that you want is "exclusive competence".

So there are elements of international protocol that the member states have decided they are better off working collectively. They decide that in some areas (commercial policy, fishing resources, competition rules) they are better off having a common policy that they decide to stick together and all adhere to.

To take fisheries, they've decided that it works better if fish stocks are managed together rather than as a free-for-all trolley dash to see who can empty the oceans quickest. Spain could argue that it is in the Spanish national interest to empty the Bay of Biscay of migratory fish stocks. But "Brussels" (i.e the other nations who fish the same stocks) could argue that it's not in the overall interest.

I've used fish as it's a pretty relatable example, but they see commercial policy as similar. They're better off in the long run sticking as a group.

The UK has decided that it's going to be the guinea pig to see whether they are right or not. When you see who is in charge of doing that for the UK though, I can't imagine the Commission is panicking too much about it.

For reference, there aren't many exclusive competencies, although they are often big ones. They are far outweighed by shared or supporting competencies, such as defence, foreign policy, humanitarian aid, research and development, education etc.

[Mic09]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

It's not Brussels dictating, how many times?

It's an agreement between all of the countries.

"You want to join us, follow the rules."

By Brussels I mean a parliament of members of 28 member states.

Any law or a directive is not an agreement between all the countries - it's an agreement of a majority of these members.

[Xann]

 

Quote

 

Rightwing thinktanks unveil radical plan for US-UK Brexit trade deal

Groups linked to Trump and Fox want foreign competition in NHS and regulations bonfire

A radical blueprint for a free trade deal between the UK and the US that would see the NHS opened to foreign competition, a bonfire of consumer and environmental regulations and freedom of movement between the two countries for workers, is to be launched by prominent Brexiters.

The blueprint will be seen as significant because of the close links between the organisations behind it and the UK secretary for international trade, Liam Fox, and the US president, Donald Trump.

Its publication follows a week of policy launches by the European Research Group of Conservative MPs designed to pressurise the prime minister into “chucking Chequers”, her softer Brexit proposal, in favour of a harder, clean break from the European Union.

Brexit should end EU citizens' special access to UK, says report

The text of the new trade deal has been prepared by the Initiative for Free Trade (IFT) – a thinktank founded by the longtime Eurosceptic MEP Daniel Hannan, one of the leaders of Vote Leave – and the Cato Institute, a rightwing libertarian thinktank in the US founded and funded by the fossil fuel magnates and major political donors the Koch family.

 

Grauniad

Wonder why disgraced filth Fox wants secrecy in negotiations with Trump?

 

[Mic09]

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Why do you keep saying Brussels?

It's a group agreement. It's common in lots of walks of life, not just trade in the EU.

You're twisting to make it sound like a dictatorship. It's a group agreement. Part of being in the group is abiding by the rules which are decide by all members to benefit all members.

 

You're talking like we're forced into these rules by some almighty dictator. We make the rules, we agree the rules, we abide by the rules and we benefit from the rules.

What if Greece does not agree with a specific directive but other members do and it goes through to be agreed as EU law?

Would you say that Greece made the rules?

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

By Brussels I mean a parliament of members of 28 member states.

Any law or a directive is not an agreement between all the countries - it's an agreement of a majority of these members.

So, who, in theory disagrees?

Access to both the single market of goods and tariff free trading to other countries as part of the bloc is objectively better than striking your own deals.

You're basically asking hypothetical questions here.

6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Why do you keep saying Brussels?

It's a group agreement. It's common in lots of walks of life, not just trade in the EU.

You're twisting to make it sound like a dictatorship. It's a group agreement. Part of being in the group is abiding by the rules which are decide by all members to benefit all members.

 

You're talking like we're forced into these rules by some almighty dictator. We make the rules, we agree the rules, we abide by the rules and we benefit from the rules.

This.

5 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

The term that you want is "exclusive competence".

So there are elements of international protocol that the member states have decided they are better off working collectively. They decide that in some areas (commercial policy, fishing resources, competition rules) they are better off having a common policy that they decide to stick together and all adhere to.

To take fisheries, they've decided that it works better if fish stocks are managed together rather than as a free-for-all trolley dash to see who can empty the oceans quickest. Spain could argue that it is in the Spanish national interest to empty the Bay of Biscay of migratory fish stocks. But "Brussels" (i.e the other nations who fish the same stocks) could argue that it's not in the overall interest.

I've used fish as it's a pretty relatable example, but they see commercial policy as similar. They're better off in the long run sticking as a group.

The UK has decided that it's going to be the guinea pig to see whether they are right or not. When you see who is in charge of doing that for the UK though, I can't imagine the Commission is panicking too much about it.

For reference, there aren't many exclusive competencies, although they are often big ones. They are far outweighed by shared or supporting competencies, such as defence, foreign policy, humanitarian aid, research and development, education etc.

Also this.

When you want to be part of something, you often give up other things, usually the trade-off is worth it (marriage example)

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

So, who, in theory disagrees?

Access to both the single market of goods and tariff free trading to other countries as part of the bloc is objectively better than striking your own deals.

You're basically asking hypothetical questions here.

This.

Also this.

When you want to be part of something, you often give up other things, usually the trade-off is worth it (marriage example)

I am asking hypothetical question - the entire debate is hypothetical.

Nothing has been agreed, nothing is confirmed, we don't even know that the UK will definitely leave the EU. For all we know we might have a government crisis looking at how things are going, a general election, different leaders and a new referendum.

I just don't like panic before we know any facts and there seems to be a lot of it at the minute.

[meregreen]

13 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

By Brussels I mean a parliament of members of 28 member states.

Any law or a directive is not an agreement between all the countries - it's an agreement of a majority of these members.

Agreements have to be unanimous. Every country has the right to veto any proposed changes to European laws. There has been talk of changing this to majority voting, but as far as I’m aware the right of veto still exists.

Edited September 18, 2018 by meregreen

[Stevo985]

14 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

What if Greece does not agree with a specific directive but other members do and it goes through to be agreed as EU law?

Would you say that Greece made the rules?

Yes I would, in general.

I would say that they objected to that specific rule, but as part of their agreement of being in the EU they agree to abide by the rules they don't necessarily agree with.
If they decide they don't like that agreement then they can leave. As we are doing. 

 

Do you know how many of these rules Britain have ever objected to by the way?

[Mic09]

6 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Agreements have to be unanimous. Every country has the right to veto any proposed changes to European laws. There has been talk of changing this to majority voting, but as far as I’m aware the right of veto still exists.

Maybe it depends on the type of law/directive, however many are passed by a popular vote in the EU chambers, example below.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved

 

[Mic09]

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Yes I would, in general.

I would say that they objected to that specific rule, but as part of their agreement of being in the EU they agree to abide by the rules they don't necessarily agree with.
If they decide they don't like that agreement then they can leave. As we are doing. 

  

Do you know how many of these rules Britain have ever objected to by the way?

No idea. I know many smaller countries have been known to object to specific directives. But that's not to say there might not be a major law that UK wishes to disagree with tomorrow.

But coming back to the above, that's a bit like saying that you agree to Brexit - because you objected to a specific rule, as a part of the agreement of being a UK citizen you agree to abide by rules you don't agree with

And I don't think anyone that's anti Brexit will agree with that statement.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Mic09

[Stevo985]

Just now, Mic09 said:

No idea. I know many smaller countries have been known to object to specific directives.

But coming back to the above, that's a bit like saying that you agree to Brexit - because you objected to a specific rule, as a part of the agreement of being a UK citizen you agree to abide by rules you don't agree with

And I don't think anyone that's anti Brexit will agree with that statement.

Well yeah. That's exactly what I've done. I'll still be living her after Brexit so I have agreed to remain part of the UK despite disagreeing with that particular decision. Good analogy.

[meregreen]

4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Maybe it depends on the type of law/directive, however many are passed by a popular vote in the EU chambers, example below.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17849868/eu-internet-copyright-reform-article-11-13-approved

 

Only legislation which does not require amending EU treaties is covered by this .Known as Passarelle clauses.All treaties and treaty amendments, require full unanimous votes from every member state. No country can be forced to pass a treaty it does not agree with.

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

No idea. I know many smaller countries have been known to object to specific directives.

56 times.

Out of a possible 2,592.

That's 2%
We've abstained 3% of times
So 95% of the time we've been on the "winning side" of the vote.

So whether your question is hypothetical or not, we're in a discussion about Brexit, and those stats show that the point is rather moot. 

Source

[lapal_fan]

26 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

What if Greece does not agree with a specific directive but other members do and it goes through to be agreed as EU law?

Would you say that Greece made the rules?

All EU Members have to agree for anything to be passed through. 

Hence why Turkey are not a member, UK, France and German (maybe Italy) didn't accept them because of their lack of humanitarian laws - ergo - they're not in. 

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

56 times.

Out of a possible 2,592.

That's 2%
We've abstained 3% of times
So 95% of the time we've been on the "winning side" of the vote.

So whether your question is hypothetical or not, we're in a discussion about Brexit, and those stats show that the point is rather moot. 

 Source

Well, then we would have to see how much impact each one of these had. For all we know the 56 might have been much more important than 2592.

I guess I'm discussing ideas, not individual policies.

[Stevo985]

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Well, then we would have to see how much impact each one of these had. For all we know the 56 might have been much more important than 2592.

Possibly. Although that wasn't the discussion made by the Leave campaign. They cited the 72 times we voted against the majority (they found another 16 from somewhere but that source can't verify it) as the negative point. I imagine if any of those 72 had had a major impact then they'd have used that in their campaign.

But happy to be corrected.

 

I do get what you are saying. The idea is we're forced to abide by some rules that we don't like because we're part of the EU.
But the reality is all countries use it as a tradeoff. Sometimes they get stung, but the overall benefit of being a member makes it worth it.

If the scale tips in the other direction and it's not worth it anymore then the member can leave. As we have done.

The irony of Brexit, though, is that that scale HASN'T tipped for the UK. It's still very much beneficial for us to be in the EU, yet we're leaving anyway.