It's not specific laws I have a problem with, it's that the ideological imperative to federalise sits in a nondemocratic and rather powerful part of the EU legislature. It's not was has happened (actually it sort of is, but nm), it's what could (very easily) happen in the future.

It would definitely be a very big step in the right direction for proper democratic accountability.

I wouldn't say Id be alright with it until I see it work in action for a few years, but I am willing to give the EU a chance to properly reform not just lipservice it... But, yes, I'd have probably voted remain if, for example, that was a committed to reform pre referendum.

I'd actually like to drill down into his reasons for disagreeing more. What is the argument?

Please don't kid yourself. Your initial vote had nothing to do with the actual structure of the EU, you were completely unaware of any details.

At the time of the referendum you had a passionate dislike for the EU, based almost entirely on complete misconceptions. To your credit you definitely read up a lot since then, but only ever applied that knowledge to come up with new ways to rationalize your dislike. Just read your posts from around the time of the referendum and see how you hop from one rationalization to the next without ever conceding a point.

I'd still like to know why quotas on trade commodities ehich effectively curb free trade and artifically distort the market is a good thing. Seems like planned economy to me.

My attempt to discuss sugar beet the other day feels like it was derailed.

Because lots of nations in the EU but also around the world are protecting their acriculture industry. So in order for everyone make a living from sugar there have to be quotas otherwise the supply would increase and prices would decrease. We have similar problems with milk in Germany right now. Production is just too high so the prices are too low to cover costs and make a profit. Instead farmers call for government aid rather than limiting the production.

Ask yourself "What happens if you leave the EU?" You wont sell your sugar here anymore because the EU keeps protecting its acriculture. And don't kid yourself. The USA is doing it too.

Why would there be quotas on the amount of fish you can catch? You could easily sell more.

And by the way the sugar industry is no innocent child either. They are doing a great job of influencing politics when there should be limits on how much sugar can be in different foods.

I'm pretty sure I said something back then which was if there had been even a promise to reform id have voted remain back then. But whatev.

nobody gives a **** about democracy. if they did they would abolish the house of lords, set up an voting system where every vote counted equally and guillotine the queen.

the parliament is the worst part of the union. if they had more power they would alienate everyone and pursue more centralised power for themselves. taking power away from the commission and council is taking it away from member states.

.

Gotcha, democracy is bad mkay

democracy > monarchy

See, you just wrote that you may have voted remain if there was a pledge to reform the structure in a way that gives the EU parliament legislative power. Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?

It was obvious at the time that you had no knowledge about the respective responsibilities of Commission vs Parliament, so it is absurd to claim that a different structure (or pledge to reform the current structure) would have changed your vote at the referendum.

Do attempts have feelings now?
I'll find a safe space for yours.

TOUGHEN UP ATTEMPT!

In the UK milk sells wholesale at 23p per litre and costs 30p to produce - I wonder if Lord is ok with that or thinks we should just buy cheap foreign milk and no longer subsidise dairy farmers. Or we could politely ask the supermarkets to pay a fair price and pass on the rise to the consumers.
Steel quotas/tariffs - good or bad?

So when people tell us that Donald Trump's protectionist policies are a terrible idea, what they don't tell us is that they are literally also the EU's policies?

Is that right? And if it isn't, tell me exactly how it isn't.

Because to my eyes, Trump's response to a world order in which seemingly every other nation games the system to protect its own interests seems entirely reasonable.

This sort of pedantry is derailment.

The subject of the verb lopped off because I'm just speaking colloquially.

[I think] My attempt to discuss sugar beet the other day feels like it was derailed.

Happy? I mean what sort of petty irritating little post was this?

There are still good reasons to have an upper house drawn from people across society and not just from career politicians.

If you look at the House of Lords and the US Senate, who do you trust more to provide checks and balances to the government of the day?

I actually think the House of Lords being unelected is not a very important topic that people don't really think through that much.

Do you honestly think we'd be better off if they were elected? Why?

Do you think we'd be better off without the House of Lords? Why?

An effective one?

So.... steel tariffs?
Always bad?

There is nothing wrong with saying something like "we think milk should be sourced locally whereever possible, and foreign milk can only be sold into the UK if and only if there is a shortage to plug the gap".

In any scenario milk will reach whatever natural price point it will because of the magic of capitalism, and not because some polit bureau somewhere has planned it.

If the UK produces an excess of milk for its local market, then I suppose it should try to sell the excess abroad. I see no problem with that.

Seriously, what did it achieve?

youre making the case that people shouldnt care much about how democratic it is.

i dont get how that's supposed to be an argument against me saying that people dont really give a **** about how democratic it is.

So should we continue to subsidise farmers who sell milk at 7p below cost?
Make supermarkets pay more and pass on the cost?
Steel tariffs - good,bad or haven't you wikied it yet?
Presumably your position is no,no and always bad based on your sugar beet answer.

We elect governments and then we set up processes to hold them to accountability.

When it is the judiciary taking Theresa May to court or stopping Donald Trump's travel ban, the left is happy to laud the importance of these institutions and to talk about faith in our democratic system based on the rule of law.

Brexit was about self-determination.

If we, as a nation, think that it is a good idea to hold the elected government accountable by an unelected upper house, then this isn't a threat to democracy.

This is quite different from people who have no accountability to the electorate making laws in Brussells and then imposing them on this country.

The two issues are completely separate.

House of Lords is there as a check and balance, which has no power to introduce new laws of its own accord.

EU is there as a regularity body which has the power to introduce new laws and measures that affect us of its own accord.

I'd say bringing up the House of Lords in this context wasn't really relevant and didn't prove any points about democracy.

I am a pragmatist who thinks that the answers to questions like this have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. There is no "one size fits all solution".

For example, I think there are good reasons for certain industries to be nationalised. Rail, for example, I do not think benefits at all from being run as private enterprise. Healthcare, ditto. My views on how I think rail or healthcare should be run does not dictate what I think about dairy products.

I do not have any particular views on steel tariffs.

The only times I've thought about steel at all are :

- I think Atlee's policy to nationalise the steel industry did not work in the long-run and that the British steel industry might have fared better if left to private enterprise.

- I saw stories about the Chinese stockpiling of steel to ensure supply outstrips demand and drive down price, and see this sort of gamesmanship as being something that obviously should be regulated.

Sorry that I don't have a more informed view about steel.

I wanted to talk about sugar beet because I listened to a show about sugar beet, so I had learned more about it.

Don't get sidetracked into these random policy discussions which have pushed the EU stuff a couple of pages back now. If someone wants to start a thread on milk prices then let them.

Don't tard up this thread with stuff not related to the question of whether Britain should decide its own policy or whether there are good reasons to give up decision making ability for some benefit of having the same policy across Europe.

This is something that still interests me. Why is protectionism good if the EU does it, but bad if Donald Trump does it?