Brexit thread - what happens next

[Mr Jack]

In the EU, appointed members propose laws, and elected representatives suggest amendments and vote on the final decision. The Civil service serves a similar role to in the UK.

The key point is that the MEPs, cannot propose laws in any shape or form. they are completely beholden to the commission. Their biggest power is the power to refuse a proposal from the commission.

This is an inaccurate portrayal. It is true that the Commission carries out the formal process of putting forth laws, but these laws do not spring de novo from the Commission, they come out of proposals put forward by the council and the committees of the parliament.

How does the legislative process work?

A Member of the European Parliament, working in one of the parliamentary committees, draws up a report on a proposal for a 'legislative text' presented by the European Commission, the only institution empowered to initiate legislation. The parliamentary committee votes on this report and, possibly, amends it. When the text has been revised and adopted in plenary, Parliament has adopted its position. This process is repeated one or more times, depending on the type of procedure and whether or not agreement is reached with the Council.

In the adoption of legislative acts, a distinction is made between the ordinary legislative procedure (codecision), which puts Parliament on an equal footing with the Council, and the special legislative procedures, which apply only in specific cases where Parliament has only a consultative role.

On certain questions (e.g. taxation) the European Parliament gives only an advisory opinion (the 'consultation procedure'). In some cases the Treaty provides that consultation is obligatory, being required by the legal base, and the proposal cannot acquire the force of law unless Parliament has delivered an opinion. In this case the Council is not empowered to take a decision alone.

Parliament has a power of political initiative

It can ask the Commission to present legislative proposals for laws to the Council.

It plays a genuine role in creating new laws, since it examines the Commission's annual programme of work and says which laws it would like to see introduced.​

from here.

Its a semi-democratic governance of an autocracy.

How can you have an autocracy without an autocrat? In truth the major power in the EU lies where it always have: with the democratically elected national governments.

 

[LOAM]

Because they did, the result was on 24th and both Gove and Leadsom both entered the race to become the Prime Minister on the 30th, a mere 6 days after the result.

I'm sorry if you want to have a semantics debate over whether I used the word immediately incorrectly or should have used 'fairly quickly' but the point is putting your hat in the ring to become the Prime Minister who will have to steer the country through Brexit after campaigning for it less than a week beforehand can never be described as "running away".

Its not semantics when it was the entire point of your argument that was wrong.

You seem to be conflating two issues. I'm talking about the entire leave campaign which lasted months but you seem to only be focussing purely on the two weeks of the Tory leadership campaign.

Are you sure, your point was;

Did they? Other than Nigel Farage quitting the UKIP leadership (which was more of a 'mission accomplished' thing ) who has "ran" away?

Boris Johnson is now Foreign Secretary and will therefore be involved in Brexit negotiations alongside David Davis. Gove and leadsom both launched immediate campaigns to become PM after Brexit too.

So who has "ran away" exactly?

Which makes no mention of pre-vote, only campaigns to become PM. Maybe you are unsure what your point was?

Entering at all, knowing the job at hand, is proof enough they were committed and trying to paint out what you consider a late entry into a leadership contest somehow supports the notion they "ran away" from the Brexit aftermath is just bizarre.

If they wanted to run away they wouldn't have entered at all and gone back to back bench obscurity.

So people who supposedly run away, are actually are willing to stay and do things they didn't plan to make sure their vision is seen through even if it means doing it themselves.....how is that running away again?

Again, my personal opinion on this was that they did it because their champion had said he wasn't interested in it (and wasn't even sure which side he wanted to be on in the first place) and no one else from the leave side wanted it.

All that aside, I feel slightly more optimistic than I did a month ago, T.May despite some reservations does actually seem to have her head screwed on right and I weirdly think Boris as Foreign Minister might have been an inspired appointment because it will make him grow up a little and puts him in a position where he will be at the front and have to deal with the the flack that he partially created.

I'm still hesitant on where we are heading and still (always will) think we had a better future in the EU and I certainly don't think for a second we will get any concession on freedom of movement / access to free market but it is what it is and May at least seems to be a strong PM going forward which is what we need right now.

 

[Klo]

What this guys says....

What this guy says...

This is an inaccurate portrayal. It is true that the Commission carries out the formal process of putting forth laws, but these laws do not spring de novo from the Commission, they come out of proposals put forward by the council and the committees of the parliament.

How does the legislative process work?

A Member of the European Parliament, working in one of the parliamentary committees, draws up a report on a proposal for a 'legislative text' presented by the European Commission, the only institution empowered to initiate legislation. The parliamentary committee votes on this report and, possibly, amends it. When the text has been revised and adopted in plenary, Parliament has adopted its position. This process is repeated one or more times, depending on the type of procedure and whether or not agreement is reached with the Council.

In the adoption of legislative acts, a distinction is made between the ordinary legislative procedure (codecision), which puts Parliament on an equal footing with the Council, and the special legislative procedures, which apply only in specific cases where Parliament has only a consultative role.

On certain questions (e.g. taxation) the European Parliament gives only an advisory opinion (the 'consultation procedure'). In some cases the Treaty provides that consultation is obligatory, being required by the legal base, and the proposal cannot acquire the force of law unless Parliament has delivered an opinion. In this case the Council is not empowered to take a decision alone.

Parliament has a power of political initiative

It can ask the Commission to present legislative proposals for laws to the Council.

It plays a genuine role in creating new laws, since it examines the Commission's annual programme of work and says which laws it would like to see introduced.​

from here.



How can you have an autocracy without an autocrat? In truth the major power in the EU lies where it always have: with the democratically elected national governments.

 

[Darujhistan]

We quit won/lost weeks ago (I thought). In hindsight though I personally think that it was deeply flawed. There was no mainstream explanation as to what it meant to stay in or leave, both parties were more concerned with their own narrative of either scare mongering or loose truths to push an agenda. It was only after the actual vote that a lot of information became available mainstream.

Yes you could go and look for the information, I personally stopped listening to either side not long after they started and just went and did my own research to see what was what and made my mind up on that basis. I guess plenty others did the same but for many on both sides they guided by two sets of ego's having a bit of a one up jape on national TV. I sat down with some friends friends who only after the vote did they know some truths and they were genuinely gutted that they hadn't spent more time doing their own research and not listening to the TV.

Its difficult and perhaps unwise to have such an important constitutional decision made on either A or B when nobody knew what A or B was. We wouldn't even answer that type of question for something as simple as what do you want to drink in a pub, but we did on something that has decades of implications.

Let's face it, you would not be moaning about process etc if you had won.

This is the thing though, we don't know any truths yet. Just like we didn't know any truths about staying, and we'd tried staying for 40 odd years.

We voted to join the common market, the EU isn't the common market, so if we were to have a ref to join, then we should have had one to leave.

Seems to me there's nothing some people like doing more these days than telling other people 'You can't vote'. Remainers are at it, the Labour party is at it...the truth is no-one can accept losing these days, look at the snow flakes in the aftermath...

Everyone I speak to who voted out is very happy with it, as supported by the polls on a recent CH5 Brexit show I saw, both sides of the argument were absolutely solid about their vote.

 

[Darujhistan]

In my case that's not true. I have always been opposed to a referendum as a mechanism to decide this, whatever the outcome. I don't personally feel this is the right way to make decisions of such magnitude and far-reaching consequence. Referendums reduce complex issues down to simplistic, populist binary votes where often people aren't even voting on the matter at hand.

If the majority of people consistently go to the ballot box over a period of time to keep voting for a party that has a stated aim of taking the UK out of Europe, then that's true representative democracy.

But a single issue referendum distorted on both sides by negativity, lies, disinformation, half-truths, hate, fear, threats and anti-establishment protest, that's not true democracy, it's an ugly, populist, crude, sham of democracy. The political equivalent of spin the bottle.

Right, and I bet you'd have been on here complaining about the ref had your side won...

Why weren't they voting on the matter at hand?

There was no realistic away of leaving the EU via a General Election - but you knew that.

How convenient that your view of democracy also ensures the continuation of your status quo, maybe we should have left the EU without a referendum as we only joined the common market after a referendum to begin with?

I think the referendum was a fantastic example of mass democracy, far more representative than any GE, when the only choice is more of the same, the same which no doubt suits you fine.

All i'm hearing is another sore loser.

 

[Mr Badger]

Let's face it, you would not be moaning about process etc if you had won.

This is another myth that some Leave voters seem to repeat. Lots of people said in advance that the referendum was a bad idea for such a complicated issue and that it was too unclear what Brexit might even look like to make an informed decision. And that was back when it looked as though Remain would win.

 

[Billies Bangers]

At the end of the day I genuinely believe that the remainers do not have that much to worry about. Immigration is likely to remain pretty much as it is but dressed up in a pretty new package to make it more palatable to the electorate. We will keep trading within the EU single market and not much will change elsewhere either.

Why do I say that? Well the real movers and shakers i.e. the world financiers, the people that oil the cogs of the worlds economies have to much invested in keeping things roughly how they are. The complexity for the UK extricating itself from the EU and the ramifications for world trade are just to big a pill for the world as a whole to swallow.

You have to look on the worlds economies as a 'club' of elites and one of those elites has just thrown the rule book out of the window. Do you really think these people are going to let a few oiks in the UK run the show and spoil their party?

History shows the pendulum swings, but no sooner has it swung towards the great unwashed than it swiftly swings back and balance is restored.

 

[deuse]

This is another myth that some Leave voters seem to repeat.

So if the stay lot would have won you would back another referendum?

 

[Darujhistan]

This is another myth that some Leave voters seem to repeat. Lots of people said in advance that the referendum was a bad idea for such a complicated issue and that it was too unclear what Brexit might even look like to make an informed decision. And that was back when it looked as though Remain would win.

Which of course conveniently meant a guaranteed continuation of the status quo.

Perfectly happy with the status quo based on an earlier referendum which was 'too complicated' for people to vote on.

 

[Domo]

Right, and I bet you'd have been on here complaining about the ref had your side won...

[snip]

All i'm hearing is another sore loser.

Can you stop being so petulant. I voted Remain but reading the exchanges on here between both camps is for the best part very interesting. There are times when I think the Leave bunch make a good argument - although I'm still firmly on the side of remain. Thought I'd make that clear

 

[do_ron_ron]

The EU Commission are "appointed" not elected, much like the House Of Lords them.

Oh you mean like the reserved seats for the clergy or the reserved seats for the descendants of feudal past rulers. Apart from the stupid you have not backed up your point.

[quote]The major difference is the House Of Lords don't have the power to propose legislation unlike the Commission. I would rather the people making our laws were elected rather than being a mate of someone else who was elected wouldn't you?[/QUOTE]

No but it can change proposed legislation. Yes I would rather the House of Lords was totally elected rather than the politicians care home or the Party donors house.

 

[ebilcake]

But a single issue referendum distorted on both sides by negativity, lies, disinformation, half-truths, hate, fear, threats and anti-establishment protest, that's not true democracy, it's an ugly, populist, crude, sham of democracy. The political equivalent of spin the bottle.

Nobody said Democrazy was perfect.

 

[Darujhistan]

Can you stop being so petulant. I voted Remain but reading the exchanges on here between both camps is for the best part very interesting. There are times when I think the Leave bunch make a good argument - although I'm still firmly on the side of remain. Thought I'd make that clear

I see you've ignored the points I made, who is it that's being petulant? You didn't like the thought of another referendum, but were happy to be bound forever to a referendum from 1973?

Interesting...

 

[Burnsy2023]

So if the stay lot would have won you would back another referendum?

If it was a 2/3rds majority, then possibly. No decision if this magnitude should be done on a simple majority.

Referendums aren't the best way to go about making this sort of decision anyway.

 

[deuse]

If it was a 2/3rds majority, then possibly. No decision if this magnitude should be done on a simple majority.

Referendums aren't the best way to go about making this sort of decision anyway.

Are you going to give a straight yes or no? lets say the results was the same but stay won.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Are you going to give a straight yes or no? lets say the results was the same but stay won.

Would let it go to parliamentary vote if it was this close either way, if the choice was mine

 

[LOAM]

So if the stay lot would have won you would back another referendum?

Honestly no, but then I don't think there should be another referendum in either case and have never said there should be. I think there's a case for a second referendum on what Brexit route to take though, once all the facts have been established.

 

[estebanrey]

Its not semantics when it was the entire point of your argument that was wrong.

My "whole point" was that the the people involved with campaigning for Brexit can not be described as "running away", I've yet to hear how that is wrong.

Are you sure, your point was;

My claim is a rebuttal to the claim I mentioned above. I meant "immediately" in my post as "very quickly after the vote [6 days] and the first opportunity to take on more power and quickly in relation to the entire Brexit campaign", but your rebuttal of my use of that word is purely down the fact they entered 'late' relative to the Tory race.

Even when I explain the mistake, you're still adamant I meant something else...the fact we were talking specifically about the Brexit Campaign and Aftermath and not the Tory leadership race I'd have though my intended meaning was obvious but clearly not.

Again, my personal opinion on this was that they did it because their champion had said he wasn't interested in it (and wasn't even sure which side he wanted to be on in the first place) and no one else from the leave side wanted it.

Even if that is true, it still doesn't fall in line with the idea they "ran away" after Brexit (which is the point you are/were defending).

 

[deuse]

Would let it go to parliamentary vote if it was this close either way, if the choice was mine

It's not your choice and you didn't answer the question. Want to try again?
It's a simple yes or no.

 

[LOAM]

Even when I explain the mistake

I forgive you