The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Brexit

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...44 45 46 47 48 ...73 74 75 · >>
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#676New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 05:14:12
“If Italians don’t see a positive outcome, euroscepticism will grow, also an anti-Germany policy which could be rooted in our country’s deep psychological past. In our historic memory, Germany has always been an adversary in times of difficulty.”
- Pier Paolo Baretta
Finance ministry,
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#677New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 05:23:31
Just not seeing a lot of solidarity in the EU at the moment.
Jennifer1984 On July 20, 2022
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#678New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 05:49:11
@shadowen Said

Just not seeing a lot of solidarity in the EU at the moment.


European countries are closing their borders at the moment as just one measure to help prevent the spread of Coronavirus.

This is allowed under the Schengen Agreement. Always has been.

And the thing about this is, that it debunks the myth that Brussels imposes freedom of movement in the EU as a diktat.

Every EU country has the right to close its borders. Always has had. Always will have. Individual countries are exercising their sovereign right to protect their people. There is no lack of solidarity involved.

Another Brexit lie debunked.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#679New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 10:11:39
@shadowen Said

Do I automatically trust pollies or bureaucrats? Hell no.

Anyway...

Civil servants are answerable to their elected ministers. Their role is to:
* offer advice
* help prepare and draft new legislation under direction from the Government and
* to help the Government run the country according to the legislation passed by Parliament.

So civil servants do effectively makes promises. For example they effectively promise to carry out the expressed will of the government of the day.


That's an...interesting view of the role of civil servants in a democracy. I'm not necessarily saying that all the things you list aren't part of being a civil servant, but to then argue that the promises of the politicians, which they have no control over whatsoever, are then their responsibility is a bit of a stretch IMO.

What you're basically arguing here is that if the politicians promise something unreasonable or unfeasible, the civil servants are at least partly to blame.

Quote:

I never said to have faith in TM and her team. I have explained many times in the past why i thought they were doing such a bad job at negotiating with the EU and getting Brexit done as per the expressed wishes of the people.


I never said that you said to have faith in TM and her team. What I said is that you said to have faith in general. I got the impression that you were talking about the overall process in itself.

Quote:

No I don't as you can make as many preparations as you like but you won't know for certain whether or not you effectively covered every possible contingency until after the fact.


When people normally say 'their preparations are complete', I was of the understanding that it meant that they are done preparing and do not plan to do more of it. Not that they are omniscient and have planned for every possible contingency. If the Government is done preparing then fine, but they have, to my knowledge, made no indication that they are, and thus are not done with all the preparation they would like to do.

Quote:

Nope. I have never said nor implied that the French fishermen are morons. Unlike you they understand the conditions of the contracts they signed with their national government.


Of course, which is why French Fishermen are incensed over their potential lack of access to UK waters. Clearly all of this fighting over fishing very clearly shows that both sides understood the 'conditions of the contracts' the same way.

Quote:

I know you don't understand how the CFP works. In this instance you seem to be of the opinion that French fishermen sign contracts with the UK government if they are fishing in UK waters. They don't. That's not how it works. That's not how the CFP has ever worked.


No, I never said that's how it works. I simply said that I don't know how it works and can find no source, even from pro-Brexit sites, on how it works, so your assertion that it works a specific way without evidence is suspect.

Quote:

Only it is here or there as 'close proximity' was an important part of your original statement.


Ok so we can obviously add not understanding the cod wars to not understanding the CFP. The three cod wars all took part BEFORE the UN's laws of the sea decreed that coastal states had exclusive rights to waters up to 200 miles from their shore. During the cod wars there was no internationally recognised EEZ. So the British fishermen were NOT violating Iceland's INTERNATIONALLY recognised waters.

During the course of the three cod wars Iceland kept on expanding her claims to territorial waters. They did this without any international agreement being in existence. The UK didn't recognise Iceland's ever expanding EEZ. Nor did almost all European countries.

The tensions caused by the cod wars did however play a major part in the UN finally deciding to specify the EEZ of coastal states. As stated, this was done AFTER the last of the cod wars.


I don't recall ever saying that Iceland's borders were internationally recognized? As you point out the UN didn't weigh in on international water territory disputes at this time, and I don't remember saying anything differently.

Why does whether or not Iceland's water borders were internationally recognized before the cod wars matter at all here?

Quote:

Who says an increase in illegal fishing in UK waters would be inevitable? Certainly the UK is not, and would not be okay with any illegal fishing in her waters.


So are you saying that all of the bad blood being accumulated between EU fishermen and UK fishermen at the moment won't result in an increase in poaching?

Quote:

In all three cod wars it was NATO and NOT the EEC/EC (now EU) who acted as mediator btw Iceland and the UK. In reality NATO forced the UK to accept Iceland's conditions. Each of the three cod wars resulted in an undeniable victory for Iceland.


And what about the access agreements agreed upon between the two parties? If NATO 'forced' the UK to accept Iceland's conditions, why were there any access agreements between the two to begin with in the negotiations? Why, for instance, does the UK get access for a specified number of trawlers within Iceland EEZ if the UK were forced to accept everything?

Quote:

Big differences. During the cod wars British fishermen for example were operating in waters that were claimed by Iceland but NOT internationally recognised as such. At the time the UN's Law of the Sea didnt exist. That is no longer the case.


I don't understand how that matters in the slightest. I'm literally drawing a blank on why that matters here.

Quote:

The RN will only be used to protect the UK's territorial waters if there is a significant number of foreign vessels illegally fishing in her internationally recognised EEZ. Again, i know you love to try and compare the cod wars with the UK exercising control over her internationally defined and recognised EEZ but the two situations are just different.


And who gets to decide what is considered a significant number of foreign vessels?
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#680New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 10:41:46
@shadowen Said

You have posted many times how you think the CFP works and every time you have been wrong.


You have maintained all along that yes the EU specify quotas but fishermen from all member states are free to catch their quotas at any time, and anywhere, in EU waters. This is simply WRONG.


The CFP is the authority that controls ALL aspects of fishing in EU waters. End of. There is no mystery. There is no grey area here.


The CFP does take into account things like breeding patterns etc but it's the CFP that controls fishing in EU waters. This is hardly a secret.


I address this later.

Quote:

Utter bollocks. Your claim has always been that fishermen from member states are free to catch their quota wherever they like within EU waters. This is NOT how the CFP works.

Furthermore, member states don't decide among themselves what the various quotas will be. The quotas are on a pre-determined basis as set by the EU.


Which was originally agreed to by the EU members themselves.

Quote:

Seriously, WTF.

If you look at the quotas (percentage of TACs) for fish in the English Channel you find (and i have given you an example) that the French catch the bulk of the fish whilst the UK's catch is often very small. So are you seriously arguing that this is because most British fishermen from Ports that front the Channel traditionally fish in areas hundreds of miles away? That rather than fish on their door step British fishermen have traditionally found it to be more economic and feasible to fish hundreds of miles away whilst the French prefer to fish closer to home. Have you any idea how ridiculous you sound?


The English have been fishing in what would become Iceland's EEZ since the 15th century.

I've also never commented on the relationship between a port's location and their choice of fishing spots. The only thing I've commented on is the UK's fishing concentration as a whole. That concentration seems to be in other areas that are not focused heavily domestically nor within the EU's wider EEZ. Whether that is due to EU regulation or not is still to be determined, but seeing as how EU relative stability mandates were partly based on traditional fishing locations I'm not holding my breath for anything appreciable here.

Quote:

So why are they mandated then? Oops, I forgot, you don't believe there are specific TACs and quotas for each of the areas that make up the EU's waters.


My guess would be for reasons of conservation.

Quote:

I am supremely confident in the data I posted. Anyway, the important issue here is do you finally agree that you were wrong in believing that their are no individual quotas and TACs in the various areas that make up the EU's waters or are you still somehow holding onto the belief that member states can catch their quota wherever they like within said waters?


Ok. So is that you FINALLY admitting that you have been completely wrong in your previous posts re how you believe the CFP works? If so it took a lot longer than it should have.


It only took so long because you refused to give me the information I was asking for.

As I said already, my initial stance was one that said 'I don't know what the laws are, but from what I've seen that doesn't seem to be the case'. I fully admit that I got a bit heated and implied some things I shouldn't have over the course of the conversation, and once again apologize for that.

Quote:

Resurgence - to reappear and grow, a new increase of activity

I think there will undoubtedly be some form of resurgence (assuming the government don't sell them out). Not great but some. Why? Hmm, let me see. Well firstly if UK fishermen go from being able to catch 32% of fish in the country's EEZ to being able to catch 100% then that's an indication. Secondly. if the UK lost all access to EU waters that they currently have this amount would still be significantly less than what they will gain.


Honestly, that argument hinges almost entirely on how we define a resurgence. Is a 5% increase a resurgence? 10%? Personally, I'm of the opinion that it was largely domestic government policy that was screwing local fishermen and the EU's quota system, at best, played a minor role.

Quote:

Now as I have stated previously no one (that i have ever heard) is suggesting that 100% of the UK's quota will be taken up by British fishermen. The thought is that the UK will act like Norway and exchange some of it's TAC for a share of the TAC in the EU's waters.

The most important thing here though is that the UK will regain control over her territorial waters.


If that's the way they want to go, then more power to them.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#681New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 12:07:15
@shadowen Said

That's the reality of it. Now of course each party has a leader (and a cabinet or shadow cabinet if they are a major party) and the assumption is that this leader will be the PM if their party wins a majority.


Like I said, the major parties will have a cabinet or a shadow cabinet so voters have an idea as to who will be in the executive arm of government. People however are primarily voting for the party, the leader of that party, and commitments made at a local level by candidates in their electoral seat.


In national elections national issues tend to take precedence over local issues. Not for everyone but as a general rule.


It's up to the individual voter to weigh up the relative importance of local and national issues. Having said that, if for them the most important thing is ensuring that BJ doesn't become PM then obviously they wouldn't vote for their local Tory candidate.


So how is this different from the EU's system again? The President of the European Commission, isn't directly elected, just like the UK's PM. They are part of major parties (they typically don't just fall into the job but already have significant backing beforehand from one or more of the EU's Parties). Supranational issues that the different EU parties back take precedence over local issues generally. Finally, the system of the EU encourages calculated voting, where people end up having to consider the entire party's stance rather than an individuals, much like how the EU system means that the public has to take into account the voting patterns of the rest of the bloc and the party as a whole.

Quote:

Remember that Executive power within the EU resides with UNELECTED bureaucrats.


Executive power in the EU system is not as important as you seem to think it is.

I don't understand how a UK system can have executive elections in effect, but an EU system that runs on the same principles doesn't.

Literally, the only difference I can think of is that the executive head doesn't necessarily come from the pool of elected officials. Of course, why would you want such a system when factoring in that ALL OF THE EU would have to vote in a public election over national, not supranational, issues.

What reason does a German have to support a UK candidate, or French, or Italian?

Honestly, the EU system looks remarkably similar (but not the same) to the US one. Here we vote for representatives that themselves vote for presidency candidates, where they SHOULD reflect how the people voted. Much like the EU system in which the votes by the EC are themselves supposed to be a reflection of the supranational votes for parties.

Quote:

The problem for the EU was that ALL member states ignored the EU's directives at around the same time. Taking one or two countries to task is one thing, trying to take all member states to task is something very different.


Are you saying that there are more stringent consequences in EU laws that are just being ignored because nobody can enforce them? Do you have any evidence of this?
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#682New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 12:42:35
@shadowen Said


@nooneinparticular

When talking about fishing in EU waters in general, and UK waters in particular you have said:

"it seems like a lot of these 'traditions' both in the UK system and the wider EU one were never codified into actual law."
False. Fishing in EU waters is covered by EU LAW.


Do you intentionally not pay attention to what I'm saying or what here? I've said NUMEROUS TIMES that my intention with that post was to comment on the general nature of UK and EU Law, and not on the specific domain of EU and UK Fishing Law. I've even said that if it was perceived in another way that I apologize for the confusion on that.

Quote:

"This means that the respective governments voided an agreed contract between private entities"
The EU allocate fishing quotas to applicable member states. The member states then allocate a percentage of their quota to individual fishing vessels registered in a port of the relevant nation. The contracts are btw the member states and the fishermen. These contracts are based on EU quotas for fishing in EU waters. The UK is no longer a part of the EU and so her waters are no longer a part of the EU's waters. If the UK take back control over fishing in their EEZ (just like every other sovereign coastal state) then contracts btw foreign fishing vessels and their government as it pertains to fishing in the UK's waters obviously will no longer be valid. This was always going to be the case. All parties knew that the contracts re fishing in the UK's waters under the CFP were dependent upon the UK being a member of the EU.


"I'm just stating that potentially ripping up contracts in the process is a risky position to take"
Again, the UK government doesn't have any contracts with foreign fishermen. None. So if the UK take back control of their waters next year the result won't be that they will be voiding contracts with French fishermen (as an example) as they never had any contracts with them in the first place.


I would say AGAIN that I'm talking about the government being a third party here, but what's even the point after the numerous times you've already ignored it. You even quoted me right above saying the exact same thing and still you insist on propping up this ludicrous argument.

Quote:

"the UK government has ALWAYS had final say on the division of the quotas themselves. They've ALWAYS had the option to 'prioritize their own fishing industry over foreign fishing industries', they had simply chosen not to until now"
False. The quotas for fishing in the UK's EEZ were (and until the end of the year still are) determined by the EU and NOT the UK. It was not for example the UK government who determined that French fishermen could catch 84% of cod in Fishing Zone VIId whilst UK fishermen could only catch 9%. The EU decided this. The UK government can only determine what fishermen are able to catch what share of the UK's 9% EU allocation. Even here though they can't prioritise British fishermen as EU law states that all vessels registered in UK ports must be treated equally. This has seen for example Dutch and Spanish trawlers being registered in UK ports and then taking around 45% of the total British quota. And under EU law the UK government could (and until the end of the year can't) do nothing to stop this from happening.


This 'loophole' that you talk about was entirely due to their own making. Neither the EU nor the CFP forced the UK to run their show this way. They decided to do that on their own. No one told them to tie their quotas to boats. They decided to do that on their own.

Here's a neat little question. If the UK have no say in this arrangement, it must therefore follow that the other countries don't either yes? So why isn't the UK doing the same in other countries?

Quote:

"how much money was injected into the UK economy by the selling of the quotas that created such disparity in the first place?"
Again, the UK government do not set the quotas for fishing in their waters. This is done by the EU through the CFP. The CFP is the reason for the disparity in the first place. End of.


Whether or not they set them has no bearing on anything here as far as I can tell.

Quote:

"I wouldn't go so far as to say the French have no grounds to claim access. We could theoretically argue that the French (and others) bought access when they bought the quotas."
The French and other nations DIDN'T buy any access to UK waters as they didn't buy any quotas from the UK. That's not how the CFP works. The EU ALLOCATE quotas to different countries. The countries then sell parts of their quotas to commercial fishermen. Fishermen buy a share of a country's quota on the very clear understanding that the country's quota is allocated by the EU with said quotas only available whilst the country is in the EU.


Yes, that's how the CFP works, but that's not how the UK managed their own quota allotment. From everything I could find, there has been an indication that UK Fishermen sold their allotment share to foreign entities which allowed them to fish in UK waters using UK quotas.

Quote:

"the EU only dictates TAC and I could find no indication that they actually divided up the sea into areas that they put individual quotas on"
Well you didnt look very hard then.


Sorry that I'm so inferior to the God of looking s*** up.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#683New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 12:59:58
@nooneinparticular Said

That's an...interesting view of the role of civil servants in a democracy. I'm not necessarily saying that all the things you list aren't part of being a civil servant...

According to the UK Civil Service's own website their role is to "supports the government of the day to develop and IMPLEMENT its policies."

Now a part of doing the above is offering advice and helping to prepare and draft new legislation. So as I said.

@nooneinparticular Said

to then argue that the promises of the politicians, which they have no control over whatsoever, are then their responsibility is a bit of a stretch IMO.

The Civil Service are supposed to be impartial. They are meant to provide the same level of support to government regardless of who is in power. They don't, but they are meant to...

Anyway, of course civil servants don't make promises to the people re specific political policies etc. They are not elected and this is not their role. They are however, according to their own website, meant to "support(s) the government of the day to develop and IMPLEMENT its policies." So yes, they do have a responsibility to help the government keep their promises by implementing the government's policies. What is truly bizarre is that you seem to imply that the civil service don't have to "support(s) the government of the day to develop and IMPLEMENT its policies" if they don't like the government's policies. If that's how they were allowed to operate they would be able to completely undermine the very foundations of the UK's democracy. It's crazy to suggest that unelected bureaucrats don't have to help the elected government develop and implement their policies if they don't like them. I mean they try to anyway but push comes to shove they have to follow (legal) government directives.

@nooneinparticular Said

What you're basically arguing here is that if the politicians promise something unreasonable or unfeasible, the civil servants are at least partly to blame.

No I'm not. I'm doing nothing of the sort. By the way, what is 'unreasonable' or 'unfeasible' is entirely subjective. All I am saying is what the civil service themselves say, and that is that their role is to ""support(s) the government of the day to develop and IMPLEMENT its policies". If they don't do that then obviously they are to blame. If they do their job and the majority of people believe that the result of the government's policy is 'unreasonable' then they can hold the government to account at the ballot box.

@nooneinparticular Said

I never said that you said to have faith in TM and her team. What I said is that you said to have faith in general. I got the impression that you were talking about the overall process in itself.

Parliament in general, and TM and her government in particular, controlled the overall process and i never had faith in any of them.

@nooneinparticular Said

Of course, which is why French Fishermen are incensed over their potential lack of access to UK waters. Clearly all of this fighting over fishing very clearly shows that both sides understood the 'conditions of the contracts' the same way.

There's a difference btw understanding the conditions of their access (contracts) and accepting significant changes to said access. Again, the EU, through the CFP, allocates a portion of the TAC for a specific area to applicable member states. The governments of these member states then sell portions of their EU assigned quota to vessels that are registered in their country. So everyone understands that the EU are determining the quotas for fishing in EU waters. The UK is no longer a part of the EU and so when the transition phase ends the EU's CFP will no longer apply to the UK's waters (unless the government sell the fishermen out). Every one bar you seems to understand this. The French fishermen certainly do. What they are trying to do is ensure that the EU does not sign any FTA with the UK unless they are promised the same access to fish in UK waters as they currently enjoy. Now again, their anger isnt because they didnt understand that if the UK wasnt in the EU the EU wouldnt control fishing in the UK's waters. Their anger is simply over the possibility of losing a significant amount of access to UK waters.


@nooneinparticular Said

No, I never said that's how it works. I simply said that I don't know how it works

You have said that the UK taking back control of her waters would result in HM Government voiding contracts with French fishermen!

@nooneinparticular Said

I don't recall ever saying that Iceland's borders were internationally recognized? As you point out the UN didn't weigh in on international water territory disputes at this time, and I don't remember saying anything differently.

You said:
"The important thing is that fishermen could travel to Iceland, VIOLTAE borders, and be backed by the British Navy while they did it. Thus instigating border friction".

Violate - to break or act against something, especially a law, agreement, principle.

So if you concede that Iceland had no internationally recognised claim on the waters being fished by UK fishermen how were such fishermen violating Iceland's borders? How does that work? How did the UK instigate border friction when Iceland's claimed borders were not recognised at the time? If you knew that Iceland's claims re their sea borders werent internationally recognised why would you claim UK fishermen were violating their borders and causing border friction? How does that work then?

@nooneinparticular Said

Why does whether or not Iceland's water borders were internationally recognized before the cod wars matter at all here?

Are you for real? You keep on trying to equate the cod wars with what will happen if the UK take back control of her waters. The cod wars were all about whether or not Iceland had the legal right to expand her sea borders and deny UK fishermen access to specific fishing grounds. The KEY issue of the cod wars was did UK fishermen have the right to fish in waters being claimed by Iceland. Nearly every country in Europe thought they did. Iceland didnt. The lack of any international law governing a coastal state's EEZ meant that both sides rejected the argument of the other. However, things now are VERY different. The Laws of the Sea specifies the EEZ of all coastal states. So unlike the cod wars there is no grey area over whether or not fishermen can fish in particular waters. It's now all covered by international law. So again, the situation btw the UK and the EU post the transition phase, and the situation btw the UK (though West Germany was involved as a bit player in the 2nd cod war) and Iceland are completely different. And yet you keep on trying to argue that the situation is fundamentally the same. It's not.

@nooneinparticular Said

So are you saying that all of the bad blood being accumulated between EU fishermen and UK fishermen at the moment won't result in an increase in poaching?

First up I don't know how much bad blood there is btw French and UK fishermen. I have heard a number of UK fishermen being interviewed over the past 4 years and they actually seemed sympathetic towards local French fishermen. There indeed does appear to be a certain sense of brotherhood among fishermen on a local level. At least to some extent. Now this doesn't in any way mean that they don't want the UK to take back control of her waters and proiritise UK fishermen. However, like I said, they did not appear to be unsympathetic re how this would impact on fishermen across the channel. Personally I think that a lot of the bad blood is btw fishermen and their governments. However this is speculation on my part.

Anyway, do I think there will be an increase in poaching? Well I know you said "an escalation is basically inevitable." Now unlike you I don't know what the future will hold. I don't know for example how many French fishermen will engage in such criminal activities. I don't know how well the UK will be able to police her waters. So I don't know if poaching will go up, stay the same or even go down. I just don't know. For the sake of the marine ecosystem I hope the UK efficiently manage their waters and that they are able to effectively police said waters. Time will tell.

@nooneinparticular Said

If NATO 'forced' the UK to accept Iceland's conditions...

You need to do some more reading.

@nooneinparticular Said

I don't understand how that matters in the slightest. I'm literally drawing a blank on why that matters here.

The cod wars were all about whether or not Iceland had the legal right to claim exclusive access to 'surrounding' waters being fished by UK fishermen. So how you can think that it simply doesnt matter that Iceland had no internationally recognised claim to said waters is beyond me.

@nooneinparticular Said

And who gets to decide what is considered a significant number of foreign vessels?

That's pretty obvious. The UK government of course. By the way MANY countries use their navy to help police their waters so using the RN if required will hardly be an unusual step.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#684New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 13:29:40
@nooneinparticular Said

The English have been fishing in what would become Iceland's EEZ since the 15th century.

Out of interest you base this statement on what exactly?

@nooneinparticular Said

I've also never commented on the relationship between a port's location and their choice of fishing spots.

Effectively you have. When I was informing you how the CFP works I used the English Channel as an example. I gave you some examples re CFP quotas for an area of the Channel which showed that, for many species, the French were allowed to catch way more fish than the British. Your explanation for this discrepancy in landed catches in the Channel was that it was down to "profitability" and "economic and feasibility factors".

@nooneinparticular Said

The only thing I've commented on is the UK's fishing concentration as a whole. That concentration seems to be in other areas that are not focused heavily domestically nor within the EU's wider EEZ. Whether that is due to EU regulation or not is still to be determined


It's not still to be determined. It's due to the CFP.

@nooneinparticular Said

I'm of the opinion that it was largely domestic government policy that was screwing local fishermen and the EU's quota system, at best, played a minor role.

UK fishermen seem to almost universally HATE the CFP. Local fishermen also hate the way the government over the years has sold licenses, but the biggest problem definitely seems to be the CFP. It's why the overwhelming majority of fishermen voted leave. If the problem was largely the government screwing them with the CFP being only a minor role you wouldn't have had almost all fishermen voting for Brexit and demanding the government take them out of the CFP.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#685New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 14:00:32
@nooneinparticular Said

So how is this different from the EU's system again?

OMG

@nooneinparticular Said

The President of the European Commission, isn't directly elected, just like the UK's PM.

Fair dinkum. The PM is always an MP from the party (or coalition of parties) who has been ELECTED by the people. Now you tell me, did the people of the EU elect von der Leyen? Did they elect Juncker?

Unreal.

@nooneinparticular Said

Executive power in the EU system is not as important as you seem to think it is.

Really? They are responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU treaties and managing the day-to-day business of the EU. So what, not important?

@nooneinparticular Said

I don't understand how a UK system can have executive elections in effect, but an EU system doesn't.

Are you saying that the EU commission should be elected by the people? That they should be held accountable to the people? Or do you think the UK executive shouldn't be elected by, and held accountable to, the people?

@nooneinparticular Said

Literally, the only difference I can think of is that the executive head doesn't necessarily come from the pool of elected officials

shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#686New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 14:11:04
@nooneinparticular Said

I would say AGAIN that I'm talking about the government being a third party here.

The UK government isn't a third party to contracts btw French fishermen and their government. You could argue that the EU is but the UK have FA to do with it other than deciding to be in or out of the EU.

@nooneinparticular Said

Whether or not they set them has no bearing on anything here as far as I can tell.

It has everything to do with it. You have long argued that the difference btw the amount of fish UK fishermen catch in UK waters compared to the number of fish EU fishermen catch in UK waters isnt down to the CFP when obviously it is.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#687New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 17:17:42
One of many examples of EU solidarity...

Ireland, Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal, Greece and Slovenia demand the issue of Eurobonds. Germany and the Netherlands strongly oppose such demands.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#688New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 19:21:48
"We want out of the Common Fisheries Policy. The Government have promised to take back control of our waters. Any going back on that, any permanent concessions to the EU on fisheries, will be seen as a betrayal."
- Elspeth Macdonald
chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#689New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 19:27:22
The challenges presented by Covid-19 have highlighted the divisions in the EU btw the north and the south. In the north you have countries like Germany and the Netherlands who are strongly opposed to many of the requests being made by Italy and Spain. The tension btw Germany and Italy is particularly noticeable at the moment.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#690New Post! Apr 22, 2020 @ 19:31:38
The big battle over Eurobonds is very interesting. Italy in particular is EXTREMELY strong in their insistence that the EU must issue Eurobonds as a part of a recovery package. Germany and the Netherlands on the other hand are strongly opposed to such a move. There is no middle ground. Someone will have to give. Someone won't get what they want and the consequences for the EU could be significant either way.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...44 45 46 47 48 ...73 74 75 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Sat Feb 27, 2016 @ 19:15
32 1144
New posts   Politics
Tue Jan 22, 2019 @ 22:01
20 2501
New posts   Philosophy
Thu Sep 03, 2009 @ 06:19
49 7741
New posts   Politics
Thu Apr 26, 2007 @ 16:35
47 4218
New posts   Politics
Wed Jan 24, 2007 @ 10:36
4 442