Brexit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

That's a pretty sweeping statement MR. Almost Johnson-esque. Can you provide any figures on this? The part that would be most relevant would be to ask about the size of these economies, and whether these large and fast-growing economies of comparable size to those within the EU already have trade deals with the EU.

I wouldn't like to walk away from an existing deal with China with the promise of a deal with Nigeria.

---

Here you go. The EU is shrinking as a percentage of the world economy.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-s...world-economy/

As for trade deals, the EU is notoriously bad at agreeing and ratifying them. Noel you don't need to worry about walking away from an existing deal with China, because the EU doesn't have one. Switzerland on the other hand does. The reason the EU is poor at agreeing free trade deals is because it has to try and accommodate the interests of 28 different countries. Sometimes even individual regions have to have their say. The EU Canada trade deal was nearly scuppered by the Belgium region of Wallonia.

Furthermore very few of the trade deals the EU has negotiated include services, which as we know is where the UK is strong. Britain going it along can negotiate trade deals that do include services by offering in exchange tariff free access to its huge consumer market.

This made me laugh from the current Private Eye.

Person in Millets anorak solves Brexit.


There was widespread joy today, as a bloke interviewed on the Ten O'clock news, standing next to a fruit and veg stall, solved Brexit by telling politicians to "pull their bloody fingers out and just get on with it".

Instant relief was felt across Whitehall, as politicians from every party suddenly realised that the answer to sorting Brexit was simple, whereas previously they'd thought that it was a complex and multi layered conundrum.

Seconds after they all "pulled their fingers out and just got on with it" Brexit was solved, hundreds of thousands of jobs in the aerospace and car industries were saved. British farmers received tariff free entry into the Common Market and the immigration status of hundreds of thousands of British citizens resident in the EU was sorted with no fuss at all.

"We really don't know why we didn't just pull our bloody fingers out and get on with it months ago" all the politicians agreed. "Why didn't we realise it was that easy?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Some good points MR. I agree the CBI have made some poor recommendations. Let's see what small businesses think about Brexit. If your narrative were correct, they'd be clamouring for a no-deal Brexit to break the strangle-hold that big businesses have got on the UK economy. But in fact they're not:

https://www.fsb.org.uk/media-centre/...no-deal-brexit

---

The link you provided dealt with businesses that export to the EU and only 8% of UK businesses do. Yet as I mentioned before all have to comply with EU Single Market rules whether they export or not. Plus our sales to the EU only comprise 44% of all exports and this is reducing. As we agree more free trade deals with the rest of the world the cost of exporting will reduce. Indeed I expect in time the EU will want to do a deal with us given their massive trade surplus.

Frankly I think it is better to have a deal than no deal but not at any price. May's withdrawal agreement that keeps us shackled to the EU via the backstop without ever being allowed to unilaterally exit should be deemed totally unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William Clough

This made me laugh from the current Private Eye.

Person in Millets anorak solves Brexit.


There was widespread joy today, as a bloke interviewed on the Ten O'clock news, standing next to a fruit and veg stall, solved Brexit by telling politicians to "pull their bloody fingers out and just get on with it".

Instant relief was felt across Whitehall, as politicians from every party suddenly realised that the answer to sorting Brexit was simple, whereas previously they'd thought that it was a complex and multi layered conundrum.

Seconds after they all "pulled their fingers out and just got on with it" Brexit was solved, hundreds of thousands of jobs in the aerospace and car industries were saved. British farmers received tariff free entry into the Common Market and the immigration status of hundreds of thousands of British citizens resident in the EU was sorted with no fuss at all.

"We really don't know why we didn't just pull our bloody fingers out and get on with it months ago" all the politicians agreed. "Why didn't we realise it was that easy?"

---

But Mark, Millets bloke is right. The government timeline should have been to the EU: do you want a free trade deal? If the EU says no then the government prepares to leave in two years with its own agenda. The prime minister prepares the path for how WE will operate after two years and tells business exactly what laws etc will be in place. Then everybody can prepare for what's to come.


Instead we've a bunch of losers dragging things out because they're in tow to the EU. We don't need the permission of the EU to exist. They are not our masters. We can make our own destiny and with the right leadership make a success of it.

Where's Graham Breeze nowadays? Is he locked up in some picture house watching the new Mary Poppins film? Come on Graham, Theresa May has to be the most hopeless prime minister ever. Tell us your judgement was poor in this regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CL

But Mark, Millets bloke is right. The government timeline should have been to the EU: do you want a free trade deal? If the EU says no then the government prepares to leave in two years with its own agenda. The prime minister prepares the path for how WE will operate after two years and tells business exactly what laws etc will be in place. Then everybody can prepare for what's to come.


Instead we've a bunch of losers dragging things out because they're in tow to the EU. We don't need the permission of the EU to exist. They are not our masters. We can make our own destiny and with the right leadership make a success of it.

---

I don't know what I think about Brexit any more Chris, I'm rapidly losing the will to live over it! There is probably a clever and witty analogy comparing May to Poppins, I'm sure the erudite Mr Breeze is the man for the job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CL

Where's Graham Breeze nowadays? Is he locked up in some picture house watching the new Mary Poppins film? Come on Graham, Theresa May has to be the most hopeless prime minister ever. Tell us your judgement was poor in this regard.

---

But CL I'm just obeying your suggestion (27th November 2018) that I "should tone down...".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William Clough

This made me laugh from the current Private Eye.

Person in Millets anorak solves Brexit.


There was widespread joy today, as a bloke interviewed on the Ten O'clock news, standing next to a fruit and veg stall, solved Brexit by telling politicians to "pull their bloody fingers out and just get on with it".

Instant relief was felt across Whitehall, as politicians from every party suddenly realised that the answer to sorting Brexit was simple, whereas previously they'd thought that it was a complex and multi layered conundrum.

Seconds after they all "pulled their fingers out and just got on with it" Brexit was solved, hundreds of thousands of jobs in the aerospace and car industries were saved. British farmers received tariff free entry into the Common Market and the immigration status of hundreds of thousands of British citizens resident in the EU was sorted with no fuss at all.

"We really don't know why we didn't just pull our bloody fingers out and get on with it months ago" all the politicians agreed. "Why didn't we realise it was that easy?"

---

Yes, there's nothing to worry about. It really is quite as simple as all that. We can also thank and trust top Brexiter-Gurus like Chris Grayling for pointing the way and sorting it - what could possibly go wrong? They demonstrate a reassuring level of cluelessness and organising ability that clearly bodes well.

Organising to beat the Brexit Blues and show those Continentals that we can do it our own way by using an untested ferry firm with zero ships or shipping experience and which cuts-and-pastes it's company's term and conditions from a Pizza company, neatly sums up the entire Brexiters', we-don't-need-experts approach quite admirably.

Roll-on 29 March I say. Oh hang on! It won't be roll-on now, or even roll-off. Darn it. Perhaps "Carry-on" would be a better metaphor - "Carry-On Brexit". Sid James would also have loved the phrase "pull their fingers out" too....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVrm6Qc6neM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

Here you go. The EU is shrinking as a percentage of the world economy.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-s...world-economy/

---

Thanks MR. This certainly shows that the average global economy has grown faster than the total EU economy. Not quite what you said, but I'm happy not to split hairs.

And I agree we have a very services-focused economy. There are those who could prefer the UK to move away from this and provide more diversity within the economy. But I work in services, so I'm not in a great place to comment.

I also agree with your point in another post - I'd prefer we strike a trade deal with the EU, and it needs to be one that works for us.

To be fair to May she did at the outset talk about what she judged to be the country's priorities. Taking control of borders; control of laws; continued frictionless trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CL

The government timeline should have been to the EU: do you want a free trade deal? If the EU says no then the government prepares to leave in two years with its own agenda. The prime minister prepares the path for how WE will operate after two years and tells business exactly what laws etc will be in place. Then everybody can prepare for what's to come.

---

Maybe that is what happened. Except the EU said "yes, let's discuss the details", and then the negotiations started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Some good points MR. I agree the CBI have made some poor recommendations. Let's see what small businesses think about Brexit. If your narrative were correct, they'd be clamouring for a no-deal Brexit to break the strangle-hold that big businesses have got on the UK economy. But in fact they're not:

https://www.fsb.org.uk/media-centre/...no-deal-brexit

---

Noel I've been in the FSB. I joined some years ago because a rep came around. I had moved in to a unit in a multi-tenure mill. My insurance had gone up from £400 to £2K and I had to book through a Lloyds scheme as no one would touch multi-tenure at the time.

I asked the FSB rep what was in it for me. Well we do cheap insurance for members - my ears pricked up :)


I think my membership was just under £200 a year. I got my insurance back down to under £1k, so it was a no brainer.


Being a member of a trade body was never a case of me allowing them or asking them to advocate for me on my behalf.


I think I'm safe in saying that is the case for most members of trade groups. They are in it for the member benefits and not for the lobbying.


Then let's look at the CBI. At a Select Committee hearing Carolyn Fairburn was aksed how many members the CBI had.
She claimed to "speak for" 170,000 members.


The reality is that the CBI has 1500 direct members. They double count members of their members, and the best example is the NFU.

The National Farmers Union is a member of the CBI and the CBI count the 50,000 NFU members not the 1.


When I asked a couple of my local farmer friends, one who supplies me with lamb and beef, they were oblivious to their CBI membership and certainly as Brexiteers they were not aligned to the CBI position.



The image the CBI gives is of big business, but it also has lots of state sector organisations and quangos. Whilst the full list of members is secret, this was shown to be the case when the CBI came out against Scottish Independence a few years back and some Scottish organisations resigned.


Visit Scotland, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland and 8 Universities were among those who publicly declared their position.

So regardless of your position on Brexit, you should be aware of the web of lobby groups. Many of them are intertwined and it looks like there is a weight of many voices, voices we should pay high regard to, but in fact they are significantly over-egging their level of representation and the type of bodies that they represent.

Finally I'll just touch on the surveys they often cite.

My experience of these groups is that they fire out an email questionnaire using Survey Monkey type methods.
If they fired out one "Are you concerned about the effects of Brexit on your business? Please take 5 minutes to answer a few questions".

Those not concerned would not respond.

Those most likely to respond would be those who might be negatively affected.

So when they report their findings as "67% of 1350 companies surveyed" they should say "1350 companies responded from the 8700 invited to take part" but they never give you that.


I've had first hand experience of such surveys, used to set policy positions for an organisation and used in my opinion unethically.

In one instance a response rate of just over 1% resulted in the organisation taking that information and forming policy that they justified as a result of the survey.

Very interesting, thanks WP. I wasn't aware of that - especially the bit about many state-funded institutions being in the CBI. I guess it makes sense that the CBI would want to talk up their importance.

Farmers is an interesting point. I would have thought farmers would be all for EU, since it pays them a lot for not doing much. Anecdotally, one of the fiercest critics of the EU I know is a local farmer. I see the NFU are against a no-deal brexit, but I'm not sure what they think about Brexit in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Very interesting, thanks WP. I wasn't aware of that - especially the bit about many state-funded institutions being in the CBI. I guess it makes sense that the CBI would want to talk up their importance.

Farmers is an interesting point. I would have thought farmers would be all for EU, since it pays them a lot for not doing much. Anecdotally, one of the fiercest critics of the EU I know is a local farmer. I see the NFU are against a no-deal brexit, but I'm not sure what they think about Brexit in general.

---

I think farmers are a very diverse group. Pennine Hill Farmer and Fens arable farmer perhaps look differently at it.
I imagine those with most influence in the NFU are those with the largest commercial interests.

But go to my final point. How does the NFU find the views of it's 50,000 members and then take a position? A survey most probably :)

Mindyou, what we read really has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Just read a news article on BBC about my area of professional expertise. Littered with major errors of fact!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William Clough

I don't know what I think about Brexit any more Chris There is probably a clever and witty analogy comparing May to Poppins, I'm sure the erudite Mr Breeze is the man for the job.

---

(The late) David Foster Wallace, whom I am reading at the moment, had a story about a farmer:

It takes place in China where there was an old farmer in the hill country who worked his farm with only his son and his beloved horse. One day the horse, which was vital to the labor- intensive work on the farm, ran off into the hills. All the old farmer’s friends came around to exclaim what bad luck this was. The farmer only shrugged and said, “Good luck, bad luck, who knows?”

A couple of days later the beloved horse returned from the hills in the company of a priceless herd of wild horses, and the farmer’s friends all came around to congratulate him on what good luck the horse’s escape turned out to be. “Good luck, bad luck, who knows?” is all the farmer says in reply.

So the farmer and his son set about breaking the wild horses, and one of the horses bucks the son off his back with such wild force that the son breaks his leg. And then came the friends to commiserate with the farmer and curse the bad luck that had ever brought these accursed horses onto the farm. The old farmer just shrugs and says, “Good luck, bad luck, who knows?”

A few days later the Imperial Army arrive, conscripting every able-bodied male for cannon-fodder but when they see the son’s broken leg, they let him off and the son stays on the farm with the old farmer. Good luck? Bad luck?

Now as for Brexit? Who knows?

To be bored with Brexit is to be bored with life or, at least, realpolitik.

I thought Tusk’s comments about “hell” were right on the money although I think Davis, Johnson etc should be first hanged, drawn and quartered and then burnt on College Green in front of IMAX cameras as a lesson for future generations about the hubris and vainglory of politicians.

Since Flaherty’s Man of Aran (1934) one has known to be wise about “truth” in any documentary but the 3-hour BBC 2 series Inside Europe: 10 Years of Turmoil has been as revelatory as, what, Riefenstahl’s Power of the Will? (1935). It has all been there unfolding on the screen and in colour.

Part 3 (shown last night) revealed the negotiating brutality of Tusk, Juncker, Merkel (+ the major players for Hungary, Poland, Italy,… + Turkey) dealing with the refugee/migrant crisis of a few years ago, when on opposite sides of the debate, in their different views on/ efforts to, save the European Union from breaking up.

May and Cameron were there (and filmed talking to the cameras) so how any intelligent person could have ever believed that the EU countries (now all on the same side) would allow the UK to jump ship and threaten its foundations with a cheery wave and its best wishes beggars belief.

I have written before (for CL) that a negotiation isn’t over until it is over, one never really knows what the parties really wanted/ would settle for, etc and 50 days, or whatever time is left to the “end”, is a long time in politics, but nobody can claim that they were unaware that the UK negotiations on withdrawal from the EU might not be all sweetness and light.

Of course in film documentaries the camera sometimes lies - but not always.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

but nobody can claim that they were unaware that the UK negotiations on withdrawal from the EU might not be all sweetness and light.

---

Afraid many people did believe Fox's EU trade deal 'easiest in human history'. People only heard what they wanted to hear.

I watched the BBC documentary series too and last night's on the migrant crisis was particularly fascinating especially the different dynamics that informed the decisions of each country. The Germans inflamed an already fraught situation by a desire it seems to atone for their dark past. Members of the German Government were horrified at the thought of pictures of German policeman dealing with migrants at the border being flashed around the world. As a result Merkel opened the border (and the floodgates) for a while. Having eventually realised that this was unsustainable she then pushed for compulsory quotas to take in migrants. The eastern European countries in particular were less than happy.

Back to Brexit and it was foolish of Fox to say it would be the "easiest deal in history". He made it on the basis that the UK and EU started from a position of regulatory equivalence. But it takes two to tango and clearly the EU desires to punish the UK and to try to ensure that Brexit is a failure. They obviously want to deter others from doing the same thing. But that doesn't mean that we are wrong to exit the EU. To me the fact that the only way they think they can keep their members is to administer punishment beatings shows that it can't be much of a club in the first place.

Quote:

---

clearly the EU desires to.......ensure that Brexit is a failure.

---

May is doing a fine job of just that, with no help from the EU :)

The hubris is on the UK politicians of the previous 25 years or so who have taken the UK in to an arrangement which is now (allegedly) difficult to leave and done so without any democratic mandate and with a growing discontent which has been clear, tangible, but ignored.

Public Opinion could have been tested at Maastricht. Major chose not to and the largely (by then) Europhile Labour Party were complicit.

It should have been tested at Lisbon. Even the Europhile Nick Clegg then urged for an in/out referendum.

On major issues that are a done deal as far as the political classes are concerned (less than 150 MPs supported Leave) somehow they have to take the public with them and on the EU they have failed to do that.

As far as the EU are concerned, it is clear there is a discontent in many countries, even in some of the original member states. In most that might not (yet) be enough to be a majority against, but it is clear in particular that Italy and France have a growing dislike and distrust.

That the EU has failed to address these concerns, that they gave Cameron no ground at all when he sought some changes before the referendum, demonstrates their hubris.

Davis in particular is a democratic liberal and I have a lot of time for him. I wish he had become Tory leader back in 2016. We might have dealt with the last 2 years in a more professional manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

it was foolish of Fox to say it would be the "easiest deal in history".

---

How was it foolish? That amoung many related questionably statements (NHS dividend, etc) achieved the desired result. It was a brilliant statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

Back to Brexit and it was foolish of Fox to say it would be the "easiest deal in history". He made it on the basis that the UK and EU started from a position of regulatory equivalence. But it takes two to tango and clearly the EU desires to punish the UK and to try to ensure that Brexit is a failure. They obviously want to deter others from doing the same thing. But that doesn't mean that we are wrong to exit the EU. To me the fact that the only way they think they can keep their members is to administer punishment beatings shows that it can't be much of a club in the first place.

---

I don't think it was foolish and note he said "should" but is almost always quoting as saying "would". That one letter is quite significant.

Here is the quote from the BBC website following the Today programme where he said this.

"Coming to a free trade agreement with the EU should be "one of the easiest in human history" because our rules and laws are already the same, the international trade secretary has said.
Liam Fox is to set out his vision of the UK's trading relationship with the rest of the world after Brexit.
"The only reason we wouldn't come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics," Dr Fox told the Today programme."

Taken in full, it is bang on and it is politics that has got in the way.

By the way, I don't like Fox, never have.

If you go back to Mrs May's Lancaster House speech, 2 months before Article 50 was invoked, it set out a comprehensive FTA, outside the Single Market, Outside the Customs Union, but with as close cooperation as possible to keep trade frictions as low as possible between UK and EU.

The UK Politicians have got in the way, whether the 80% remain cabinet, the 80% remain commons, the nearer 90% remain lords and the pro-Remain DEXU Select Committee.


The EU politicians have got in the way - of course they want to extract everything they can and have taken advantage of mistakes made by Mrs May.
Best example is refusing to agree an outlined future trading position and expecting us to make commitments on the NI border before we knew what the likely end trading terms would be. Mrs May caved in when she agreed the December 2017 joint declaration.

But Fox was right, it should have been easier, but politics has got in the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry

How was it foolish? That amoung many related questionably statements (NHS dividend, etc) achieved the desired result. It was a brilliant statement.

---

Well as WP has pointed out, he has actually been misquoted. I stand corrected. Even I'm starting to fall for the misinformation from remainers!

This from the Guradian
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday, the international trade secretary said: “The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history.

“We are already beginning with zero tariffs, and we are already beginning at the point of maximal regulatory equivalence, as it is called. In other words, our rules and our laws are exactly the same.”

However, he went on to concede that securing a deal would probably not be easy in practice. “The only reason that we wouldn’t come to a free and open agreement is because politics gets in the way of economics,” Fox said.


Sorry to disappoint you Pat.

I despise The Independent, but some of what it says is true.

It is not hard to find questionable brexiteer (and remainer) claims durning the referendum
https://www.independent.co.uk/infact...-a8113381.html


I see they have fixed the Firefox post/edit issue, thanks to whoever :D

Vested interest, political ambition obscuring notion of service, arrogance and manipulation of the media.
Shameful but inevitable. Brussels and London equally to blame!
What are we 'ordinary' voters to make of it all?
Once (if!) we have freed ourselves from the unelected upper chamber of European Politics, we shall have set about our own!

can you let us know what exactly you mean by the "unelected upper chamber of European Politics"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_Mole

can you let us know what exactly you mean by the "unelected upper chamber of European Politics"?

---

I will answer that for you, a lot of people have a problem with the European Commission becasue they are nominated rather than elected. In many ways that group of people are akin to the most senior levels of the UK Civil Service. In the UK the (unelected) Civil Service job is to enact the decisions of the (elected) cabinate. In the EU the (unelected) commision enacts the decisions of the (elected) Council of Ministers and (elected) European Parliment.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsh...ean-commission

As a rule, the Commission has a monopoly on the initiative in EU law-making (Article 17(2) TEU). It draws up proposed acts to be adopted by the two decision-making institutions, Parliament and the Council.

Despite the final decision on laws lies with the two elected bodies it has to be said that even among europhiles within the European Parliment there are complaints that the Commision has too much power.

OK, so the EU Commission is made up of members of the EU, selected from MEPs, who are elected. The head is elected by the European Parliment. Which is made up of elected MEPs. I'm still struggling to see the "unelected" element here, regardless of their power(s). I also struggle to see valid criticim of decomcratic process from a country with an entirely unelected upper house, with a parliment ultimately ruled over by a monarch. And how removing ourselves from a process with which we will have to comply is somehow "freeing".

Ah, well. Back to the fells, then

Only 43 days to go.

PM defeat AGAIN.

Ha ha ha getting interesting now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagger

Only 43 days to go.

PM defeat AGAIN.

Ha ha ha getting interesting now.

---

I wish it was a more boring topic I can`t imagine.

I hate phones, why did I write civic instead of civil?
Actually the commissioners are not necessary MEPs. Most of them are senior politicians from their respective countries.

Quote:

---

Most of them are senior politicians from their respective countries.

---

and therefore, what, unelected? The point still stands.

Here are three of them!
Donald Franciszek Tusk is a Polish politician who has been the President of the European Council since 2014. He served as Prime Minister of Poland from 2007 to 2014

Jean-Claude Juncker is a Luxembourgish politician serving as President of the European Commission since 2014. From 1995 to 2013 he served as the 23rd Prime Minister of Luxembourg; from 1989 to 2009 he was also Minister for Finances

Michel Bernard Barnier (born 9 January 1951) is a French politician serving as European Chief Negotiator for the United Kingdom Exiting the European Union since December 2016. He has served in several French cabinet positions such as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2004 to 2005

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_Mole

and therefore, what, unelected? The point still stands.

---

They aren't elected, they are nominees from their countries. The European Parliament has to approve the Commission as a whole but cannot vote against individuals. Theoretically the European Parliament has the power to dismiss the commissioners but in all these years has never done so. The closest it came was when the Commission as a whole resigned in 1999.

The European Commission is the Executive and is the body that introduces legislation. So in effect its commissioners are like ministers of a Government. Ministers unlike commissioners are overwhelmingly elected as MP's and can be removed by the electorate.

The cabinate can make laws without due regard to parliment, in fact that is what May wanted to do with Brexit until Gina Miller scuppered that. The EU Commision can only propose laws to the elected parliment and council of ministers. They are NOT the same as ministers.

What's this, "unelected"? Those people ARE elected.
Sure one does not become MEP unless is elected, no...?

It's necessary to get elected to get a seat in parliament. However, in most countries (UK included, correct me if I'm wrong) one can be part of governement without actually ever being elected.

Plus, when did you elect your royals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gambatte

in most countries (UK included, correct me if I'm wrong) one can be part of governement without actually ever being elected.

---

Yes members of the unelected house of lords can be in the cabinate.
Seem to remember lord sainsbury was in tony blair's cabinate

Breaking Brexit News!

The UK has secured a post-Brexit trading agreement with Switzerland - Hurrah!

So we can be secure in the knowledge of a tariff-free supply of Toblerone - Phew!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry

The cabinate can make laws without due regard to parliment, in fact that is what May wanted to do with Brexit until Gina Miller scuppered that. The EU Commision can only propose laws to the elected parliment and council of ministers. They are NOT the same as ministers.

---

No that's not quite right.

Invoking Article 50 isn't making law. The court process was to set a matter of precedent and often Govts will let something like this play through the courts to establish precedent.

If you want to make law, you actually have to put it through Parliament and finally get the Queens signature to put it on the statute.

Where "shortcuts" exist for such as statutory instruments that is because a law has been put in place previously allowing that to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave_Mole

OK, so the EU Commission is made up of members of the EU, selected from MEPs, who are elected. The head is elected by the European Parliment. Which is made up of elected MEPs. I'm still struggling to see the "unelected" element here, regardless of their power(s). I also struggle to see valid criticim of decomcratic process from a country with an entirely unelected upper house, with a parliment ultimately ruled over by a monarch. And how removing ourselves from a process with which we will have to comply is somehow "freeing".

Ah, well. Back to the fells, then

---

Dave, imagine if the Lords and Commons roles were reversed.

That is the nearest I can come to explaining the issue.

The unelected body in the EU is the one that sets rules and regs and the elected body only has the potential to review, at times reject or amend but the elected EU body is the subordinate body.