Brexit - Post Match Reaction

As far as I can see, at present we are stumbling around in the dark, desperate for ideas, and without a clue as to what Brexit will ultimately look like.

Which is no different to being in the EU with no idea of where it will end up... Federal state of Europe? 2 speed Europe? Euro failing? EU falling apart? More countries? More legislation? More power? EU army? Disbanding of Nato? Who knows?

All we do know is that change within the EU has been continuous and that it won't stop anytime soon. It's never stood still..

So basically we've swapped one uncertainty for another... unless you could tell me what staying in the EU would look like???

 

So basically we've swapped one uncertainty for another...

That wasn't promised in the referendum.

Which is no different to being in the EU with no idea of where it will end up... Federal state of Europe? 2 speed Europe? Euro failing? EU falling apart? More countries? More legislation? More power? EU army? Disbanding of Nato? Who knows?

 

All we do know is that change within the EU has been continuous and that it won't stop anytime soon. It's never stood still..

 

So basically we've swapped one uncertainty for another... unless you could tell me what staying in the EU would look like???

You've acknowledged that history is shaped by unpredictable events. The issue is that Brexit will add another unpredictable event to the list: how our constitutional status is changed.

You've acknowledged that history is shaped by unpredictable events. The issue is that Brexit will add another unpredictable event to the list: how our constitutional status is changed.

... and staying in the EU and what that means is as unpredictable as leaving.

Where the EU is now, wasn't predicted 40 years ago.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

That wasn't promised in the referendum.

Indeed. The remain argument made no reference to where the EU is going. It was played as the safe option/status quo, which is clearly a load of ********

... and staying in the EU and what that means is as unpredictable as leaving.

Sorry, but it's not. We know we'd be in the single market, in the customs union, subject to the four freedoms, subject to the European Court of Justice. We don't know those things now.

If your point is that we can't predict every aspect of the future in the EU, then it's so blindingly obvious as to be redundant. Everything carries uncertainties, but Brexit means additional uncertainties. It is possible that once Brexit has been sorted and we address the above questions, we may feel more certain about our trajectory than many EU countries do. But not from this vantage point.

On another note, I've just finished Tim Shipman's excellent book on Brexit, covering the inside track between 2013 and May becoming prime minister. It exposes, among many other things, how McDonnell, Milne, Andrew Fisher and Corbyn sabotaged the Remain campaign through alternating ambivalence and outright hostility.

Sorry, but it's not. We know we'd be in the single market, in the customs union, subject to the four freedoms, subject to the European Court of Justice. We don't know those things now.

 

If your point is that we can't predict every aspect of the future in the EU, then it's so blindingly obvious as to be redundant. Everything carries uncertainties, but Brexit means additional uncertainties.

There is one thing that is certain, which is that the UK is in charge of it's own destiny now.

Sorry, but it's not. We know we'd be in the single market, in the customs union, subject to the four freedoms, subject to the European Court of Justice. We don't know those things now.

 

If your point is that we can't predict every aspect of the future in the EU, then it's so blindingly obvious as to be redundant. Everything carries uncertainties, but Brexit means additional uncertainties. It is possible that once Brexit has been sorted and we address the above questions, we may feel more certain about our trajectory than many EU countries do. But not from this vantage point.

 

On another note, I've just finished Tim Shipman's excellent book on Brexit, covering the inside track between 2013 and May becoming prime minister. It exposes, among many other things, how McDonnell, Milne, Andrew Fisher and Corbyn sabotaged the Remain campaign through alternating ambivalence and outright hostility.

They obviously didn't believe in the EU. They were all in awe of Tony Benn and in tune with his opinions on Europe.

No nation state is ever truly 'in charge' of its own destiny as there are forces in this big wide world that lay are far beyond the control of any one country in the 21st century. The idea is nothing but an illusion. Neither can I agree that a future for this nation outside the EU is no more uncertain than one from within. The EU is no more immune from change than any other organisation is, not that change is necessarily a bad thing of course, but the level of political and economic uncertainly we face today is of an entirely different order of magnitude compared to what went before.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-wto-schedule-argentina-spain-brexit-latest-a7468766.html

"Brexit Britain’s drive for a new World Trade Organisation settlement could be blocked by countries with which the UK has territorial disputes such as Argentina or Spain, experts warned today.

The UK will need unanimous agreement from all the WTO’s 160-odd members for its new “schedule” to set baselines for future trade deals."

'Lesley Batchelor, director general of the Institute of Export.......“They know we want to get things sorted out, they know our timescale. That’s the trouble. We are not in a blind negotiating position, or in an even-handed one. We will have to compromise. This idea that any trade deal works with us being in the dominant position went out the window when we stopped using the Army as a sales force for the East India Company."'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-wto-schedule-argentina-spain-brexit-latest-a7468766.html

 

"Brexit Britain’s drive for a new World Trade Organisation settlement could be blocked by countries with which the UK has territorial disputes such as Argentina or Spain, experts warned today.

 

The UK will need unanimous agreement from all the WTO’s 160-odd members for its new “schedule” to set baselines for future trade deals."

 

 

'Lesley Batchelor, director general of the Institute of Export.......“They know we want to get things sorted out, they know our timescale. That’s the trouble. We are not in a blind negotiating position, or in an even-handed one. We will have to compromise. This idea that any trade deal works with us being in the dominant position went out the window when we stopped using the Army as a sales force for the East India Company."'

But we are in charge of our own destiny and can dictate terms to Johnny Foreigner dontchaknow?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-wto-schedule-argentina-spain-brexit-latest-a7468766.html

 

"Brexit Britain’s drive for a new World Trade Organisation settlement could be blocked by countries with which the UK has territorial disputes such as Argentina or Spain, experts warned today.

The UK will need unanimous agreement from all the WTO’s 160-odd members for its new “schedule” to set baselines for future trade deals."

 

'Lesley Batchelor, director general of the Institute of Export.......“They know we want to get things sorted out, they know our timescale. That’s the trouble. We are not in a blind negotiating position, or in an even-handed one. We will have to compromise. This idea that any trade deal works with us being in the dominant position went out the window when we stopped using the Army as a sales force for the East India Company."'

So will Spain give up it's African colonies in Ceuta, Melilla and Canary Islands??? Will Argentina give up the stolen territory of Patagonia?? If so, I think we could talk.

Anyway, I'm sure that Argentina would rather sell us their corned beef than have us buy it from Brazil,whilst Spain would like us to buy their plonk instead of the stuff from new world territories. At the end of the day, money talks, bull**** walks....

So will Spain give up it's African colonies in Ceuta, Melilla and Canary Islands??? Will Argentina give up the stolen territory of Patagonia?? If so, I think we could talk.

 

Anyway, I'm sure that Argentina would rather sell us their corned beef than have us buy it from Brazil,whilst Spain would like us to buy their plonk instead of the stuff from new world territories. At the end of the day, money talks, bull**** walks....

Aaah more of the "the 27 will have to do what we want because we import their cars" theory - except this time its 180. Who knew we were graced with a beknighted intellectual Colossus on this thread.

So will Spain give up it's African colonies in Ceuta, Melilla and Canary Islands??? Will Argentina give up the stolen territory of Patagonia?? If so, I think we could talk.

 

Anyway, I'm sure that Argentina would rather sell us their corned beef than have us buy it from Brazil,whilst Spain would like us to buy their plonk instead of the stuff from new world territories. At the end of the day, money talks, bull**** walks....

Surely you don't need for it to be explained that Spain and Argentina aren't trying to get into the club, they're already in.

But we are in charge of our own destiny and can dictate terms to Johnny Foreigner dontchaknow?

Surely you don't need for it to be explained that Spain and Argentina aren't trying to get into the club, they're already in.

As are we and have been since 1995.

Argentina seemed to be up for looking at a free trade deal with the UK shortly after the referendum. If they block our WTO schedule, this isn't really going to help them in negotiating a free trade deal.

As for Spain, I thought they were part of the EU and won't have a 'specific' say in the matter??? (Happy to be corrected on this, but not sure they can leverage anything)

Back to the WTO, I was of the understanding that there is a core principle of non-discrimination. That means that WTO members must not treat any member less advantageously than any other. Unless things have changed in relation to this core principle, I would suggest that the Independent article is a load of guff

We're in charge of our own destiny but can't dictate terms, only negotiate them. Dictating terms is what the un-elected EU Commission and the European Court of Justice have been doing to us (you and me) for the past 40 odd years. Dictating as in what dictators do. You know, those leaders that ignore the results of elections or the will of the people that pay their inflated wages.

You're one thick ****

brexits going very well for the billionaires like rupert murdock and his cronies who sold the make believe la la land to the gullible fools ,but at least we are happy being poorer with the rising prices and weak pound and despite the fact we are still selling off our big companys to foreign hands still. the eu holds all the cards in negotions,but its a laugh a minute no plan apart from outdated nationlism in a global world. can,t see how we are going to get to this promised land without any facts or ideas apart from the make believe dilusional dreamers .reminds me of a club who were in the top 4 of the premier league who leaves to join the national league and is proud of it .

Under the EU yoke, the House of Commons couldn't even abolish VAT on tampons, despite a unanimous vote for the proposal, by our democratically elected MP's. Tells you all you need to know about this corrupt and undemocratic organisation.

You're one thick ****

I do enjoy a good debate.

Under the EU yoke, the House of Commons couldn't even abolish VAT on tampons, despite a unanimous vote for the proposal, by our democratically elected MP's. Tells you all you need to know about this corrupt and undemocratic organisation.

It was agreed that they would be zero rated in March 2016.

It was agreed that they would be zero rated in March 2016.

It was "proposed" that they would be zero rated in March, 2016. In Euro speak "proposed" means "maybe in a couple of years". To quote from the EU Action Plan, which is published here:

The Action Plan aims at initiating such political discussion with the Member States in the Council, as well as in the European Parliament to allow the Commission to submit, in 2017, detailed legislative proposals based on a mandate from the Council.

Interesting article on this topic, here:

The Commission has announced that British women will still be paying the tampon tax after the referendum, despite Government claims to have ended the tax.

 

• The Commission communication does not mention the 5% rate of VAT which must currently be charged on sanitary products.
  
• The Commission states that ‘reform of VAT rates’ will not occur until ‘2017‘.
  
• This means that any proposals to abolish the tampon tax could be vetoed by any member state after the referendum.
  

As the Treasury Minister, David Gauke MP, has admitted: ‘any change to EU VAT law would require a proposal from the European Commission and the support of all 28 member states. Without that agreement, we are not permitted to lower rates below 5%’ .

This contrasts what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has claimed: ‘We’ve used our seat at the top table in Europe to secure what the British public has demanded – common sense on VAT and an end to the tampon tax’.

It was "proposed" that they would be zero rated in March, 2016. In Euro speak "proposed" means "maybe in a couple of years". To quote from the EU Action Plan, which is published here:

 

 

 

Interesting article on this topic, here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-zero-rating-of-womens-sanitary-products/vat-zero-rating-of-womens-sanitary-products

"The UK is using this opportunity to provide for the reduction of VAT on women’s sanitary products to the zero-rate"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-zero-rating-of-womens-sanitary-products/vat-zero-rating-of-womens-sanitary-products

 

"The UK is using this opportunity to provide for the reduction of VAT on women’s sanitary products to the zero-rate"

Well, ... you can prove anything with facts!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-zero-rating-of-womens-sanitary-products/vat-zero-rating-of-womens-sanitary-products

 

"The UK is using this opportunity to provide for the reduction of VAT on women’s sanitary products to the zero-rate"

Its going to save 18 million women paying a total of £15m in tax - 83p each a year. GM gets to the heart of the big issues.

Its going to save 18 million women paying a total of £15m in tax - 83p each a year. GM gets to the heart of the big issues.

It would help if you guys could read:

VAT: zero-rating of women’s sanitary products

HM Revenue & Customs - First published:24 March 2016

This tax information and impact note enables the future application of the VAT zero-rate on supplies of women's sanitary products that are currently subject to VAT at the reduced rate of 5%.

Luckily we voted to leave so the point is moot, but to repeat, EU law does not currently allow us to apply a zero rate of VAT to tampons until the EU member states all say yes...

Latest news on this:

By April 2018 at the very latest, the tampon tax – a 5% VAT placed on sanitary items on the grounds they are “luxury” – will be thrown into the pile of other bogus and out of date laws that discriminate against women’s ovaries. 3 months ago in a debate on various tax rules, Conservative MP Jane Ellison confirmed the deadline would be set for the inane law “if the move is legal at that point under EU law”.

My point was, you pile of festering Remainers, that if it is this hard to change EU tax laws to save a measly £15m after a unanimous Commons vote to do this, what chance did we have to do something important?

I really give up on you lot. Totally brain washed by the large corporations and the London elite...

I really give up on you lot. .

Don't do that. You're still a 'work in progress', but I haven't given up on you.

Latest news on this:

 

 

 

My point was, you pile of festering Remainers, that if it is this hard to change EU tax laws to save a measly £15m after a unanimous Commons vote to do this, what chance did we have to do something important?

 

I really give up on you lot. Totally brain washed by the large corporations and the London elite...

The substantive point (per the previous page) is your claim that the EU is a dictatorship. Unsurprisingly you provided no evidence to that end. Rather blabbered something incoherent about the European Commission.

You do realise the European Commission cannot make or foist laws on member states?

That it can only make proposals which have to be agreed by the Council of the EU made up of ministers from national governments and Parliament?

That the powers the Commission does enjoy (notably in the monitoring and enforcement of EU laws) rest on treaties and laws decided by elected national governments?

That Commissioners are increasingly accountable to European Parliament/directly-elected MEPs?

That the European Council, another body made up of heads of state/national governments increasingly set the broad direction of EU policymaking?

That even under qualified majority voting the vast majority of EU legislative decisions have been voted for by the UK government (97.4% for 2004-09; 86.7% for 2009-15) presumably because they are beneficial to the UK -never mind that the most sensitive areas need to be agreed by unanimity?

That brexiters on here, you included, either because they are thick and/or hypocritical simultaneously criticise the EU for being too cumbersome given the need for consensus across member states because of that pesky thing called democracy?

The EU, like every living breathing political system, has weaknesses; acknowledging this does not prove that it is a dictatorship. Far from it. Thick **** is just about right.

Under the EU yoke, the House of Commons couldn't even abolish VAT on tampons, despite a unanimous vote for the proposal, by our democratically elected MP's. Tells you all you need to know about this corrupt and undemocratic organisation.

In fairness, this is definitely up there with Kristallnacht.

The substantive point (per the previous page) is your claim that the EU is a dictatorship. Unsurprisingly you provided no evidence to that end. Rather blabbered something incoherent about the European Commission.

 

You do realise the European Commission cannot make or foist laws on member states?

That it can only make proposals which have to be agreed by the European Council made up of heads of state/national governments and Parliament?

That the powers the Commission does enjoy (notably in the monitoring and enforcement of EU laws) rest on treaties and laws decided by elected national governments?

That Commissioners are increasingly accountable to European Parliament/directly-elected MEPs.

That even under qualified majority voting the vast majority of EU legislative decisions have been voted for by the UK government (97.4% for 2004-09; 86.7% for 2009-15) presumably because they are beneficial to the UK -never mind that the most sensitive areas need to be agreed by unanimity?

That brexiters on here, you included, either because they are thick and/or hypocritical simultaneously criticise the EU for being too cumbersome given the need for consensus across member states because of that pesky thing called democracy?

 

The EU, like every living breathing political system, has weaknesses; acknowledging this does not prove that it is a dictatorship. Far from it. Thick **** is just about right.

The concept that all 27 countries have to agree to something for it to be implemented is intrinsically democratically dysfunctional. The democratically elected European parliament is diluted every election by protest parties in other countries like UKIP further undermines its integrity. The most powerful people in the EU are all unelected. We are now told that Russia intervened to facilitate a leave vote. Who exactly Shurlock is thick?

The concept that all 27 countries have to agree to something for it to be implemented is intrinsically democratically dysfunctional. The democratically elected European parliament is diluted every election by protest parties in other countries like UKIP further undermines its integrity. The most powerful people in the EU are all unelected. We are now told that Russia intervened to facilitate a leave vote. Who exactly Shurlock is thick?

Not sure what your point is pal. My point was directed at the claim that the EU is a dictatorship. For what's it worth you exhibit a basic misunderstanding of the powers of the European Commission -and how they relate to other institutions. Perhaps you would like to address the post in its entirety. But perhaps not given your pîśś poor effort at a response

The concept that all 27 countries have to agree to something for it to be implemented is intrinsically democratically dysfunctional. The democratically elected European parliament is diluted every election by protest parties in other countries like UKIP further undermines its integrity. The most powerful people in the EU are all unelected. We are now told that Russia intervened to facilitate a leave vote. Who exactly Shurlock is thick?

I'm trying to figure out why you have written out 4 unconnected sentences, all unrelated to the topic being discussed of whether the EU is a dictatorship.

The concept that all 27 countries have to agree to something for it to be implemented is intrinsically democratically dysfunctional.

Generally it is done by weighting votes by size of national population, so probably gets close to democratic. A limited number of items require the full membership to vote, such as accepting the UK's proposals for post Brexit relations.

The democratically elected European parliament is diluted every election by protest parties in other countries like UKIP further undermines its integrity.

The most powerful people in the EU are all unelected.

Probably the majority of the most powerful people in the world are unelected.

We are now told that Russia intervened to facilitate a leave vote.

If they can interfere in the US Presidential election, why not our referendum ?

Who exactly Shurlock is thick?

I'm sure the grammar nazis could pick that question apart.

Generally it is done by weighting votes by size of national population, so probably gets close to democratic. A limited number of items require the full membership to vote, such as accepting the UK's proposals for post Brexit relations.

 

 

When did UKIP declare independence ?

 

They didn't but look at the make up of the EU parliament

 

 

 

Probably the majority of the most powerful people in the world are unelected. Is that a good thing? I would argue it is a fault.

 

 

If they can interfere in the US Presidential election, why not our referendum ? really? Do you really believe that?

 

 

I'm sure the grammar nazis could pick that question apart.

Are you just being clever and neglecting the core argument?

What is your core argument? I read your response to Shurlock a couple of times and I couldn't make head nor tail of what you were on about.

Generally it is done by weighting votes by size of national population, so probably gets close to democratic.

If that was anywhere close to being true then we would not be in the mess that we are today.

Using UK members of the European Parliament as a yardstick, we have 73 MEPs for a population of around 64 million.

Take our neighbours next door in Ireland, on that "democratic" basis the 4.5 million of them would have 5 MEPs. They actually have 11, so an Irishman gets 2 votes for every one of ours in Europe.

Lets be extreme, Malta by population using the UK benchmark, should have half an MEP. They have 6, so each Malteser gets 12 votes for every one of ours.

The conspiracy theorists might think that Jean-Claude Juncker was biased, being from Luxembourg an' all. But it really is perfectly rational for all 540,000 Luxemburgers to have 12 times as much voting power as the Brits, isn't it?

If it was anywhere even close to being democratic, we would still be in there sorting it out. The EU is built on precisely the same democratic principles as Blatter's FIFA. It's rotten to the core, and past saving.

If that was anywhere close to being true then we would not be in the mess that we are today.

 

Using UK members of the European Parliament as a yardstick, we have 73 MEPs for a population of around 64 million.

 

Take our neighbours next door in Ireland, on that "democratic" basis the 4.5 million of them would have 5 MEPs. They actually have 11, so an Irishman gets 2 votes for every one of ours in Europe.

 

Lets be extreme, Malta by population using the UK benchmark, should have half an MEP. They have 6, so each Malteser gets 12 votes for every one of ours.

 

The conspiracy theorists might think that Jean-Claude Juncker was biased, being from Luxembourg an' all. But it really is perfectly rational for all 540,000 Luxemburgers to have 12 times as much voting power as the Brits, isn't it?

 

If it was anywhere even close to being democratic, we would still be in there sorting it out. The EU is built on precisely the same democratic principles as Blatter's FIFA. It's rotten to the core, and past saving.

This kind of disproportionality between populous and less populous geographical areas is very common globally in most democratic systems. Obvious examples being the US electoral college - compare a county map and the popular vote totals for Trump v Hillary - and, er, well, our good old British parliamentary system untouched by evil old biased Johnny Foreigner.

Voters in rural Scotland, redneck Hicksville or Malta have disproportionate power vs those in LA or London. It's a fact of life and in many ways perfectly sensible and more democratic than everything being mathematically equal.

This kind of disproportionality between populous and less populous geographical areas is very common globally in most democratic systems. Obvious examples being the US electoral college - compare a county map and the popular vote totals for Trump v Hillary - and, er, well, our good old British parliamentary system untouched by evil old biased Johnny Foreigner.

 

Voters in rural Scotland, redneck Hicksville or Malta have disproportionate power vs those in LA or London. It's a fact of life and in many ways perfectly sensible and more democratic than everything being mathematically equal.

I don't disagree with the principle, it's the application that is wrong. Obviously Luxemburg can't have half an MEP, it would be prefectly reasonable to let them have a whole one, which would still be a skewed but justifiable disproportionality. But why 6? Is it because geographically it's such a big country?

I know Cameron is a t055er, but as our representative he went to them at the beginning of this year and told them that if they didn't take a long, hard look at themselves we might walk away and leave them to it. They laughed at him and told him to f**k off. That was when the referendum was lost. (or won, depending on your point of view)

If that was anywhere close to being true then we would not be in the mess that we are today.

 

Using UK members of the European Parliament as a yardstick, we have 73 MEPs for a population of around 64 million.

 

Take our neighbours next door in Ireland, on that "democratic" basis the 4.5 million of them would have 5 MEPs. They actually have 11, so an Irishman gets 2 votes for every one of ours in Europe.

 

Lets be extreme, Malta by population using the UK benchmark, should have half an MEP. They have 6, so each Malteser gets 12 votes for every one of ours.

 

The conspiracy theorists might think that Jean-Claude Juncker was biased, being from Luxembourg an' all. But it really is perfectly rational for all 540,000 Luxemburgers to have 12 times as much voting power as the Brits, isn't it?

 

If it was anywhere even close to being democratic, we would still be in there sorting it out. The EU is built on precisely the same democratic principles as Blatter's FIFA. It's rotten to the core, and past saving.

Look up Qualified Majority Voting.

Are you just being clever and neglecting the core argument?

No, I'm just being clever.

Look up Qualified Majority Voting.

In particular double majority voting.

The EU, like every living breathing political system, has weaknesses; acknowledging this does not prove that it is a dictatorship. Far from it. Thick **** is just about right.

If you think I'm a thick ****, you should listen to this thick ****, pal.

If you think I'm a thick ****, you should listen to this thick ****, pal.

 

I agree the lad isn't the sharpest tool in the box.

Poor old Jacob can't even get his basic facts right. Qualified majority voting doesn't work on the basis of weighted member votes. As such Malta doesn't have 15x more influence per capita than the UK.

The adoption of acts by the Council of the EU now requires the approval of 55% of member states which critically must represent at least 65% of the EU's population. In other words the system rewards the demographic or population weight of countries, benefitting larger countries like the UK. Very different from the picture presented by Jacob.

Perhaps you should try to make up your own mind on issues. Dimwitted deference to elites and a thing for plummy accents arent excuses pal.

EDIT: I investigated the link and see the debate was held in November 2013 before the changes to qualified voting took effect (1 November 2014). That leads to a number of conclusions:

(i) while Jacob's claims were closer to the truth at the time, he was hoodwinking the audience as he knew the voting system was being overhauled and replaced, as set out in the Lisbon Treaty. Or perhaps he wasn't aware of the changes which would be consistent with his general cluelessness.

(ii) you're an even thicker **** for sending an out of date link. That said, you don't have a clue about the institutional realities of the EU and the significance of one date over any other date, given your perspective is basically grounded in rank prejudice.

Jacob's claims were closer to the truth at the time, he was hoodwinking the audience as he knew the voting system was being overhauled and replaced, as set out in the Lisbon Treaty. Or perhaps he wasn't aware of the changes which would be consistent with his general cluelessness.

All anyone needs to read is your reference to the Lisbon Treaty as a beacon of democracy, to determine who is a thick ****. Face it pal, your side lost and any opinions you have on the EU is just ******ing in the wind. No real need for you to debate any more, unless losing is a habit you enjoy.

All anyone needs to read is your reference to the Lisbon Treaty as a beacon of democracy, to determine who is a thick ****. Face it pal, your side lost and any opinions you have on the EU is just ******ing in the wind. No real need for you to debate any more, unless losing is a habit you enjoy.

The reference to the Treaty of Lisbon was made solely in relation to the changes to qualified majority voting that neither you nor Jacob seems to understand. I made no other factual or normative claims about the Lisbon Treaty.

It's painfully obvious to see you're incapable of arguing or addressing specifics - whether it's this post or previous ones. No great shame to admit you're out of your depth pal. After all your side "won".

If that was anywhere close to being true then we would not be in the mess that we are today.

 

Using UK members of the European Parliament as a yardstick, we have 73 MEPs for a population of around 64 million.

 

Take our neighbours next door in Ireland, on that "democratic" basis the 4.5 million of them would have 5 MEPs. They actually have 11, so an Irishman gets 2 votes for every one of ours in Europe.

 

Lets be extreme, Malta by population using the UK benchmark, should have half an MEP. They have 6, so each Malteser gets 12 votes for every one of ours.

 

The conspiracy theorists might think that Jean-Claude Juncker was biased, being from Luxembourg an' all. But it really is perfectly rational for all 540,000 Luxemburgers to have 12 times as much voting power as the Brits, isn't it?

 

If it was anywhere even close to being democratic, we would still be in there sorting it out. The EU is built on precisely the same democratic principles as Blatter's FIFA. It's rotten to the core, and past saving.

that is a very interesting post. I had never seen that before and it cant be fair or democratic. I know we have vetos but it must be maddening to see a small population getting unfair voting proportion

I recommend you do some reading. For laws to pass, they must be agreed by both the Council of the European Union and Parliament.

Voting weights in the Council are determined by country population size, so act as a check and balance for any unfairness (itself debatable) you think exists with apportionment rules for the European Parliament. Moreover the Council is widely viewed as the more dominant institution.

that is a very interesting post. I had never seen that before and it cant be fair or democratic. I know we have vetos but it must be maddening to see a small population getting unfair voting proportion

Currently the average size of constituencies in Wales is 56,628 and in Scotland 65,475 and in England 71,858. We didn't elect our Prime Minister or ministers nor vote for their manifesto (not that they have one or will tell us their plans). We don't vote for House of Lords or the Queen. But its the EU which is undemocratic.

Currently the average size of constituencies in Wales is 56,628 and in Scotland 65,475 and in England 71,858. We didn't elect our Prime Minister or ministers nor vote for their manifesto (not that they have one or will tell us their plans). We don't vote for House of Lords or the Queen. But its the EU which is undemocratic.

Whatever system we use doesn't make the EU any more or less democratic.

If both systems are **** then no wonder people feel so disenfranchised with politics today.