What do you think about Brexit?

Post Reply New Topic

I want to know?

A great idea. The world needs more borders, less mingling, more freedom for the rich, less for the poor and less forgetting who's who. I hope they don't forget to shut la Verja tight in Gibraltar, too.

I think its good. Within the EU the UK cannot restrict other EU nationals moving to the country which means working class people have to compete for jobs and housing with people from much poorer countries.

The EU is very anti freedom too, they are seeking to censor the internet. They want to introduce a law which means any time you link to an article you have to pay a tax.

In the long term I worry about one world government, it will only lead to tyranny with one government there is no escape.

Last edited by Daniel89 on 23 Jul 2018, 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

I wonder if it's even going to happen or if the process will be purposely stalled to a point that those in power will collectively look forlorn and sheepish as they shrug their shoulders. "Oh well, we tried."

I think the EU countries were sold a bill of goods under the guise of financial strength and safety in numbers with open borders. You can't have it all. The quasi-sovereignty of the member states has been tested with immigration to the breaking point making it clear that EU leaders only regard individual member state sovereignty as token. The Euro exists. Why not go the opposite direction and dissolve sovereignty making the EU a single country?

The idea of the United Nations making laws for the U.S. to follow would be unacceptable to most Americans like the EU does for member states. Quasi-sovereignty. In a sense, fake.

I believe the government is intentionally making a mess of thing to justify a second referendum.

I want to know why you want to know?

I think Brexit is a good idea. The EU is not composted of elected officials but rather appointed officials. I feel it is important to select the officials you place in charge of your government and that nations should have sovereignty. Individuals running the government should be held accountable for their actions.

Someone argued here not so long ago that the EU is the one interested in making the breakup as quick as possible, so it's soon forgotten and the chance that other countries will follow the UK's lead is minimized. Therefore, isn't it a good thing to draw out the process, causing as much pain as possible, to hasten the EU's demise?

The EU wants to send a message to other nations that leaving for them would be bad.

It has Trade deals with other countries and doesn't demand a say over domestic policies yet thinks entitled to dictate to Britain. This even though we have a huge trade deficit with them and they get more out of us than they do we.

I agree with everything you've said.

We have European elections here every 5 years. The EU Parliament is made up of MEP's (members of European Parliament)

I don't even think about it.

IMO it's a poor idea. Both campaigns couldn't have been more of a shambles if they tried and it creakes on from one week to the next with the Conservatives attacking each other over it and squabbling about what it may look like. There has been some dramatic moments over the past week with the ERG voting and CU Bill vote and it feels slightly more settled as we are about to hit recess.

Even with just 8 months left it's hard to know how it will all end as there have been so many twists and turns, even just in the past month.

I guess nothing should be ruled out with this Govt, but if I had to put money on where it will go I would say a pretty soft brexit right now. I put that down to JRM's recent behavior in doing all he can to create a no deal scenario. There simply aren't the numbers in parliament for no deal so if we end up with a vote over either no deal Vs a very soft EEA type version offered to us by the EU then I think they will vote for the latter. I think JRM is looking right now like the person who will destroy his own hard brexit dream.

But in a weeks time things may look quite different again!

You are correct up to a point. Government in the EU is composed of 3 groups. The European Parliament (EP) which is directly elected, and the Council of European Union and the European Council being only indirectly legitimized through national elections. The European Commission remains the sole initiator of legislation, but the European Council is able to provide an impetus to guide legislative policy. The Commission proposes, and the Council disposes.

The European Commission (EC) is the executive branch which operates as a cabinet government, with 28 members of the Commission (informally known as "commissioners"). There is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state. One of the 28 is the Commission President proposed by the European Council and elected by the European Parliament. The Council of the European Union then nominates the other 27 members of the Commission in agreement with the nominated President, and the 28 members as a single body are then subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.

So unless I am mistaken it is a composite of elected and appointed individuals. Anyways from an outsider the whole system seems very confusing.

I strongly agree with you nations should have their own sovereignty. To save the benefits of the EU there could be a treaty instead. I'm against regional unions because they usually tell other nations what to do even if it isn't the best for that nation.

Most are elected by us, some are elected by those we elect. This link explains it better than I can

http://uk.businessinsider.com/is-the-eu-undemocratic-2016-3

Maybe it doesn't seem such a big deal to some in the UK as we also don't get to elect our Prime minister here, we elect local MP's and they vote to elect the head of the party which is not too dissimilar to how some of the EU leadership works. We also have an entire 2nd chamber of unelected people in UK Parliament.