EU Vote

[Svensson]

I don't see this as a problem. After all, every member state gets a set of regulation that they KNOW are valid in all other countries as well. Simple example: I want to buy fire-proof furniture. Fire-proof according to my understanding and according to the laws of the country that I live in. So this means that when I look at a sofa from Italy, I don't want to have to just take their word for it. I want to know that this is according to a BSI standard. And since I can not expect the BSI to certify Sofas from Italy, an EU certification is the next best thing. Otherwise, I don't think that Italian Sofas should be sold in the UK as I can't be sure that they are fire-proof. for my own piece of mind and also for my insurance. If my house burns down, I don't want the insurance company to be able to turn around and refuse paying up because I had furniture that was not sufficiently fire-proof. So a true single-market can only work when all goods and services produced in that single-market adhere to certain minimum standards. So the benefit of this system is that all member countries can fully trust the Goods and services of all partners within the Single Market.

[Ginger]

But one needs to remember that the EU does not exist for the benefit of the UK but for all 28 member states. This is bound to suggest that the UK's particular influence is diluted on the European stage.

That's precisely the problem, not just for Britain, but for all the other countries involved in this slow-motion disaster.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The United States of Europe is an intriguing idea, but I think it faces a different challenge than our American founding fathers experienced with uniting thirteen Colonies into one Republic. For one thing, the colonists more or less shared a common nationality and language (barring some Germans and Dutchmen), and while many people were uninterested in leaving England's control, many others thought it was a good idea.

Within Europe, there are several countries, with differing languages and long histories of rivalries, alliances, disagreements, and perhaps outright hatred of each other. The similarities are closer to the United Nations than the United States, I think.

PCDunn,

The European Union is far, far more like the USSR than it ever will be like the USA.

I'll tell you what it is, a more discerning public such as the USA would have left a long, long time before we did.

Americans would never have accepted an institution such as the EU.

[caz]

It will be interesting if the tory membership does select Theresa May to be party leader because she wanted us to remain in the EU, while 52% of the voting public suspected Cameron and his remain gang of lying through their teeth. I wonder what percentage of the tory membership voted leave?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So, wait, we're now in a situation where both the USA and the U.K. may have a woman leader? Interesting!

Only in the UK because the men have abandoned ship, taking all the flotation devices with them.

The Brexiters might have been more careful what they wished for - unless of course their most ardent wish was for Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom to try and keep the boat afloat.

May backed the remain campaign and previously gave her full backing to gay marriage.

Leadnone didn't and didn't.

I'll get me coat.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Hi Pat

Re the Americans :

They were like the EU in that they kept expanding as new areas were settled and new states signed up. The population, languages etc became more mixed as immigrants arrived. The only people they didn't seem to want were the Chinese, for some unknown reason.

America is a nation and has proved it on the battlefields. The EU has never had to fight a major war and my guess is that it would collapse like a house of cards.

Worth remembering that America changed and became the Hotel California : states could check in but never leave (US Civil War). If the EU lasts long enough - which I doubt - the same will apply.

[Pcdunn]

Thanks for the explanation, Robert. Then this could be a very historic decision, indeed. Good luck!

As for Mrs. Clinton, she's not out of the woods yet. The election is still a long way off, and anything may happen, especially as the party conventions haven't been held yet. I'm ambivalent, but would prefer a woman over the misogynist.

[Robert]

Hi Pat

The tories are currently deciding between two women for their party leader. Whichever wins will be PM. When the next general election is held, then barring a sudden and remarkable swing to the smaller parties, the PM will either be the Leader of the Labour Party or the Leader of the Conservative Party. Even if no party gets an absolute majority, and there has to be a coalition with a smaller party, the PM will be from the larger party.

At present the Leader of the Labour Party is a man. This may change and, come the next election, the Labour Party may be led by a woman. In which case, the PM after the next election would be virtually certain to be a woman.

One might expect a woman in charge of a party to give more cabinet posts to women than male leaders have done, though this isn't by any means certain. If it does happen, it will mean that there are more credible women politicians able to throw their hats in the ring for future leadership elections.

[Pcdunn]

If what you are arguing is that the EU cannot function democratically and effectively without becoming a superstate - a United States of Europe - then I agree. In fact, it was clear back in 1975 that this would be the case. It is inevitable. Leave campaigners warned the public then that this would be the case. They were denounced as fascists and communists by the remainers, who swore that the idea of a superstate had never entered their heads. The precondition of course is that if the EU is to be a democratic superstate, its citizens must actually want this. We know the majority of the British don't, and I suspect the same holds true for many of the remaining countries. I would hope that there would be simultaneous referendums in all the remaining countries to see if these countries want such a superstate.

The United States of Europe is an intriguing idea, but I think it faces a different challenge than our American founding fathers experienced with uniting thirteen Colonies into one Republic. For one thing, the colonists more or less shared a common nationality and language (barring some Germans and Dutchmen), and while many people were uninterested in leaving England's control, many others thought it was a good idea.

Within Europe, there are several countries, with differing languages and long histories of rivalries, alliances, disagreements, and perhaps outright hatred of each other. The similarities are closer to the United Nations than the United States, I think.

[Pcdunn]

She's no Iron Lady?

Can folk not remember the last time the UK had a woman in charge? Dear God help us.. I just can't decide which of these two are worse. General Election required.

I remember Mrs. Thatcher, of course, but it's been a long while, as political reigns go. Should the situation of both the United States electing a woman for President and the United Kingdom choosing its second female Prime Minister, we may enter a new age (acknowledging, of course, that many other world nations have already been there ahead of us.)

If a General Election was held, could someone else be chosen as the PM? My knowledge of the British electoral system is fuzzy at best, I'm afraid.

[Robert]

Hi Svensson

You're dead right, Juncker is nothing like a British civil servant. British civil servants are supposed to be neutral. I realise there is a big difference between theory and practice, but Juncker is in a different league entirely.

The thing is that I accept that there shouldn't be an "absolute democracy" (otherwise, if the people are consulted on every single decision

I was reading this and expecting you to continue with something like 'then everything would be up in the air all the time, and nothing would ever get done.' But instead :

we would basically just have mob rule)

Oh, I so agree. We can't have the Great Unwashed getting above their betters.

If what you are arguing is that the EU cannot function democratically and effectively without becoming a superstate - a United States of Europe - then I agree. In fact, it was clear back in 1975 that this would be the case. It is inevitable. Leave campaigners warned the public then that this would be the case. They were denounced as fascists and communists by the remainers, who swore that the idea of a superstate had never entered their heads. The precondition of course is that if the EU is to be a democratic superstate, its citizens must actually want this. We know the majority of the British don't, and I suspect the same holds true for many of the remaining countries. I would hope that there would be simultaneous referendums in all the remaining countries to see if these countries want such a superstate.

[Geddy2112]

So, wait, we're now in a situation where both the USA and the U.K. may have a woman leader? Interesting!

Can folk not remember the last time the UK had a woman in charge? Dear God help us.. I just can't decide which of these two are worse. General Election required.

[Svensson]

Perhaps if the EU system were adjusted to give the British people as much control over it as they have over their own government, they'd not want to leave?

I think they actually do if the UK had taken the EU parliament more seriously. But one needs to remember that the EU does not exist for the benefit of the UK but for all 28 member states. This is bound to suggest that the UK's particular influence is diluted on the European stage.

Just playing devil's advocate here, for the EU to be really effective, I actually think they need more powers:

- Fiscal powers so that the Greek debt crisis could have been better managed and therefore resolved.
- powers to distribute refugees amongst its member states. This way, Refugees could have been assessed, processed and taken care of and we would not have had these shameful scenes in the Balkans we had last summer.

Now I know that this may be a hair-raising suggestion for many people but if you look at the nature of the issues that the EU does have, I think they are a result of the EU being politically weak and due to it's setup, being slow to react to such issues.

[Svensson]

Svensson, please show me a civil servant in Britain with the power of Juncker.

The president of the European Commission is not a Civil Servant in the sense that a UK Civil Servant is. The European Parliament does have oversight over this appointment and Junker needed to be approved by a qualified majority. So again, the democratically elected body of the EU does have powers here.

As for democracy, this link shows that the German system is no better, in fact it's worse. People can wait weeks before finding out what they voted for.

http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Ger...html#Executive

The thing is that I accept that there shouldn't be an "absolute democracy" (otherwise, if the people are consulted on every single decision, we would basically just have mob rule) and therefore, I am not complaining about the existing system in Germany or in the UK. Neither is perfect but both are a good compromise of how the two governments can function in their unique ways.

The big difference is that it is the UK Leave campaign who have vehemently complained about a supposed lack of democracy within the EU which means that, by extension, the Leave campaign would argue that the UK system is more democratic. In my view, the UK system is NOT more democratic than the EU system for some of the reasons I have listed before. As a result, I consider the Leave campaign's democracy argument hypocritical which morally weakens the UK's position in the up-coming talks with the EU.

[Ginger]

Exactly my point. PM not elected, cabinet is not elected, Upper house is not elected, Civil Servants are not elected... and the UK "electorate" complain about EU politicians not being elected and unaccountable?

Perhaps if the EU system were adjusted to give the British people as much control over it as they have over their own government, they'd not want to leave?