Oligarchy?

This is one of the most fascinating diebitter arguments, as the way the HoC votes for HM government is lumpst exactly the way the EP votes for the Commission, yet one is an undemocratic process and the other isn‘t according to dB. Even after years of him arguing this, I still don’t understand it.

Ironically, being in the EU means you don't get a say. Maybe a meeting or two where someone unelected listens to your concerns, and a veto of whether you think the EU did a good job on your behalf, but actual direct involvement? Nah.

Of course it does. I still can’t see how the uk has a ****ty trade deal, I really do want to understand the brexiteer mindset. What’s wrong with the way the uk trades right now?

HM Government - individuals elected by voters. (Theresa May for example stood as an MP and has the direct connection with the democratic process.)
Commission - individuals unelected by voters

UK (or any member state) cannot have its own trade deals under EU law, even with countries that have no direct trade deal with the EU.

Why not? Cos EU sez no.

And this is detrimental, why? As we’ve already seen, the uk negotiating on its own ****ing sucks. What exactly do brexiteers expect to come from the divorce?

This pretense that the EU is democratically representative is just ridiculous. How do we vote the likes of Tusk and Juncker out, exactly?

Freedom from the EU is the goal.

Even if it’s detrimental economically? This sounds like our fundamental difference. I don’t hate collaboration to the point that I’ll cut my own nose off to spite my face.

So all it takes to make you happy about the EU as a democratic institution is having a rule that all commissioners must be MEPs, which AFAIK not even the UK has?
Commissioners are proposed by elected national governments and voted on by elected MEPs now. It is still basically the same process as in the UK.
You don't get a say in whether Therese May gets a seat in the HoC either, if you don't live in her constituency and her office as PM is one for the whole UK and not of her constituency. She is not directly voted on by the people she governs either.

The same way the UK as a whole votes out HM government. By a vote of no-confidence in parliament.

edit: sorry, didn't see you were also writing about Tusk. Parliament can't vote out the Head of the European Council AFAIK, but he does not have a formal role in crafting legislation anyway.

2.5 years in and still you don't understand, or you do and you are deliberately being a dick. If you have trade deals with other non-EU countries you are either setting your own tariffs or having differing regulatory standards. You can then bring goods in which can then flow through to the rest of the EU via your deals.

I see staying in the EU as fine for short term economically, less so medium term and catastrophic long term. (long term has 2 outcomes, failure or full integration, neither of which are good for European countries imo)

It is a controlling organisaton that tries to centralise everything into its federalist vision, rather than take charge of the important international concerns and leave the rest to national and subnational democratic process.

A few changes would make me more pro-EU.

Proper application of subsidiarity would do it, though I'm afraid the mistaken introduction of the euro means the EU views fiscal union (and by implication political union) as part of its purview, which I fundamentally disagree with.

Alternatively, returning full veto on everything to every member on all matters not deemed 'internationally important' would also turn me towards remaining over leaving.


Id define these as internationally important - environment, basic standards, security, international haulage/travel infrastructure, basic human rights, basic worker rights (ie EU give the minimum acceptable levels that countries abide by, they DO NOT control and decide on every aspect).


Where EU really works for me is the collaboration in the non-political arena, stuff like medicine, education, science. But it's just gone way, way too far in its ideological drive around matters political, and I believe it's becoming more and more a danger to the democracies of Europe with each passing year.

so again we’re back to a possible maybe overreach at some point maybes in the future, possibly.

So instead of a possible doubtful catastrophe in the long term, let’s do it now in certainty. What a strategy.

Erm, no. I see no deal as actually the best for long term prosperity. But its short term is probably a bit of an issue. (But serious, who knows?). But I get why a deal is a smoother (though much slower) path to that final goal of freedom from the EU. The key moment is when we can finally implement our own deals, imo.


What you said is kind of along the lines of: does a prisoner who is being slowly worked to death escape now while he's strong enough, though he risks getting a punishment beating, or does he stay there cos he lives a little longer even though he knows what will inevitably happen.

Its more like stabbing yourself now because you are afraid someone will stab you in the future

As an honest question:

Do you think the British empire was good?

I have a theory that extreme brexit supporters like yourself, who want an outcome no one would even admit was a possibility these years ago because of how stupid it was, will answer yes.

My theory is brexstremists see the empire as good, despite evidence, and think that some remnants of it can not only be revived but will be openly accepted by former subjects, despite evidence.

The rest of us are debating if the British Empire was almost as evil as the Nazis and how close they were and brexstremists cant accept this reality.

It was mirrored recently when they refused to hold the position that Churchill was an objectively terrible person as a white supremacist who created concentration camps and was responsible for genocide, but he also led Britain to victory alongside Russia, America and Canada in WW2.

Britain is very bad at understanding its own history which is why we make so many bad decisions now, especially on an international stage, and I think brexit is a really good demonstration of this. Its the best reason I have for why we are leaving the most successful peace organisation ever created with no benefit whatsoever.

Its funny seeing thread returner Phil rehash every point DB has splagtreded a million times already.

Just find a wall to smash your head against Phil.

Maybe literally true in a sense. but in practice can the EU not implement regulations based on the votes of foreigners that could ultimately require the imprisonment of a UK citizen?

If that's true that is a whole load more surrendering of sovereign power than agreeing foreign policy with other states, I'd imagine that almost none of Clapham or Hull omnibus agrees with your take on that.

If it's not true, the EU really got its propaganda wrong, because I thought its regulations were legally binding without local enactment (unlike its directives).

Which regulations are you discussing that have a criminal and not a civil punishment? I am not aware of any.

There will be associated criminal laws broken like fraud depending on the details if you claimed something not true, like that you met EU standards for not chlorinating chicken or whatever, but this is not the same.

This looks similar to the U.S, dangle a too-good-to-be-true offer in front of a greedy businessman, naturally inclined to Putinism, before a big election. Get him to do your bidding, probably without an explicit agreement, once the election is over....

from time to time it's worth remembering that anyone who has ever talked about an eu/european army like it's a real thing that could actually happen is completely lost and should never be listened to again

https://twitter.com/pbergsen/status/1102574136176623618