Sooo, they have a tentative Brexit agreement?

The US House of Representatives represents the people. The Senate does not. It represents states as separate entities (the governments of the states) and hence was originally appointed by the states. Then the executive branch under the president runs the country for the benefit of the country - which includes the people but also the states.

If that sounds familiar to what you just described of the EU, then it is by design. And you should be able to pretty clearly see, especially as it’s spelled out in black and white, the a slow incremental move from articles of confederation to constitution is progressing. They couldn’t more clearly say the intent is to unite to a single country and dissolve subordinate states as sovereign entities, short of the present leaders coming right out and saying that. I’d say in a decade they will be saying that. And maybe another decade they will achieve it.

Also an EU citizen from France living in London gets to vote for the a London MEP, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but senators are elected.  If you don't like what yours does, you vote him out.  I'm trying desperately to find out why Brexiteers are always moaning about unelected EU officials, and mostly I'm getting answers to different questions.  All the reasons the power is unfairly divided, or why they are moving to a closer union or whatever, but the question is are they elected?

And yes, I am aware that not everyone who works for the entire EU is not elected. 

The Council is the EU Membership - the national governments of the EU Member States. 

The national government of a Member State doesn’t have to be elected to the Council.  The definition of the Council is that it’s composed of the EU Member States.  Plus (I believe) representatives from a few other bodies that are not constituent bodies.

This is all explained on the EU website, much better than I can do.  It hardly requires painstaking effort to discover.   

All right then, the third and final bit of EU officials is the council, and that is made up of the governments of EU states.  Are the actual people sitting in the chairs unelected?  Or are they just civil servants who are hired to sit in those chairs?

Yes, but senators are elected.  If you don't like what yours does, you vote him out.  I'm trying desperately to find out why Brexiteers are always moaning about unelected EU officials, and mostly I'm getting answers to different questions.  All the reasons the power is unfairly divided, or why they are moving to a closer union or whatever, but the question is are they elected?

Senators ARE elected, as is the President & VP. No one on the commission is elected by the people.

The MEPs are elected by whatever citizen of any EU country lives in the district, so nonUK citizens are voting for the MEPs coming from the UK. And the number of MEPs apportioned to each country is part of a stupidly complex formula no one understands such that population is taken into account but small countries get more reps per capital than large countries.

The parliament is weak. The commission is strong. But then actual rules are made and executed by agencies. Unlike America, several of those are independent agencies that answer to no elected or appointed person, but their actions are binding.

If you want to call the commission unelected because they’re appointed or vice versa, that’s really splitting hairs with both arguments being technically correct in their own way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Listening Mr. Texas metaphorically wave his willy to show us how military he actually is,  makes me wonder about the future of American's respect for those in the military.  Maybe in the same way that Trump's overt racism has made it okay to openly say things that would have been unacceptable just a few years ago, perhaps Trump's obvious disdain for the military will have a similar impact.  Maybe the days of saluting the military before games or allowing veterans board planes are numbered.  I know Mr Texas thinks that nobody in the military cares about that stuff but I've got my doubts.  While the military is not my thing, don't look forward to a time when we've got no respect. 

Listening Mr. Texas metaphorically wave his willy to show us how military he actually is,  makes me wonder about the future of American's respect for those in the military.  Maybe in the same way that Trump's overt racism has made it okay to openly say things that would have been unacceptable just a few years ago, perhaps Trump's obvious disdain for the military will have a similar impact.  Maybe the days of saluting the military before games or allowing veterans board planes are numbered.  I know Mr Texas thinks that nobody in the military cares about that stuff but I've got my doubts.  While the military is not my thing, don't look forward to a time when we've got no respect.

The country already doesn’t share in the sacrifice or begin to comprehend the mission or the work. It’s something like 5% of the living population who have ever served. It is highly skewed to coming from some states more than others. And something like 30% (I haven’t seen that study in a while) come from a fixed set of families who serve one generation after the next. People already feel uncomfortable when thanked for their service, and I’m really not fussed if someone wants to buy me a drink or not.

Trump is actually quite popular in the military. More than in the general public anyway. Any president that increases pay, works to fix the VA, provides adequate funding, and let’s them do their job without micromanaging once the trigger is pulled is always going to be popular. He’s been good with the actual troops. If he shows up to a wreath laying ceremony or not doesn’t matter. If he whipped it out and pissed on the tomb of the unknown he’d have a shiny bayonet through the back of his skull before the secret service could stop it, but showing up or not? Yeah it doesn’t matter. Vets aren’t sitting at home watching that on TV, they’re at Applebee’s getting their free burger or getting sloshed at the VA. You should let other groups decide for themselves if they’re offended by something rather than telling them what their opinions should be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  I'm trying desperately to find out why Brexiteers are always moaning about unelected EU officials, and mostly I'm getting answers to different questions.  All the reasons the power is unfairly divided, or why they are moving to a closer union or whatever, but the question is are they elected?

How can you know so little about the EU and their laws, when it is their laws (from a  European Court of Justice Ruling)  that you are using to be in the UK?

No the serious question is why England sees itself as Empire. That ended at Suez.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Empires require the subjugation of other peoples.

the United Kingdom has a full seat at all EU institutions, all of which have in-built mechanisms for change. No one is bullying us.

Citizens of a Member State only rarely get an opportunity to express a view on their country’s participation in the EU. 

That is why there is the rise in the populist parties. Some are now in government in their EEA country, one of which is taking their 6 month term of the European presidency atm.

Politicians were only saying the other day that the EEA countries that don't have a rise in these populist parties, are the ones where their citizens have been given a vote on what Brussels are doing. e.g. UK, Switzerland; where the Swiss citizens voted to end Free Movement to their country; Brussels said they will take them to court to make them; Brussels then said they would wait until after the UK have voted on whether to have a Brexit ; UK votes to leave and Brussels tell Switzerland they would not take them to court and they too can change the Free Movement rules for their country; Switzerland then withdraw their long standing application to join the EU, as other European countries have already done.

For me, it's the rapid rise of the populist party in Germany that was the most amazing because it was Germany, where they are made to feel they must pay for everything because of what happened with the two world wars. It was only March last year when the President of the European Parliament, Schulz, decided he would become the leader of Germany in elections later that year and he became leader of their Social Democratic Party. Instead, his party had the worst results in decades, as did Merkel and a populist party, Alternative für Deutschland (Germany), not only got seats in their Parliament but became the official opposition and has control of some of the budgets. Within weeks, polls showed his socialist party was now third, behind the AfD. Schulz stoped being the socialist party leader in February 2018.

The local German elections this year have meant the AfD getting into local governments too. The main parties losing control of these despite in some cases, decades of running them. It was the end of Merkel running Germany.

How can you know so little about the EU and their laws, when it is their laws (from a  European Court of Justice Ruling)  that you are using to be in the UK?

I could easily ask the same question of you, since you are going around moaning about the "unelected" EU when they all seem pretty elected to me.

Of course I wouldn't frame the question in such a snotty way.

I could easily ask the same question of you, since you are going around moaning about the "unelected" EU when they all seem pretty elected to me.

Of course I wouldn't frame the question in such a snotty way.

Except you do and worse.

Kiddies!  Play nice! 

No the serious question is why England sees itself as Empire. That ended at Suez.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Empires require the subjugation of other peoples.

the United Kingdom has a full seat at all EU institutions, all of which have in-built mechanisms for change. No one is bullying us.

The EU requires subjugation of national sovereignty & self determination.

There’s nothing empire about being open for business with the entire world rather just than one protectionist corner. And to do so on whatever terms are best for the UK and they can leverage into existence, rather than be held back by the interests of other peoples/places. They just want to be free to act in their own rational self interests. And they should have the freedom to do that.

Absolutely nothing about that subjugates anyone. Quite the opposite. It’s actually pretty ridiculous reading that article today - like the EU has to be Hitler to be separate from them, or the UK has to be an empire to stand alone. That’s just so incredibly illogical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is it a free market if you run a gunboat up the Yangtze?

And consider this, until 1944 the world reserve currency was the Pound Sterling. A recently unearthed document from Bretton Woods describes that by the moment you could see the Empire dissolving. Nothing particularly free market about it.

Britain had a choice to join the community but there was no choice at Breton Wood, or later when Keynes was made to beg, or at Suez. Britain had a choice e to join (and was denied twice), and they have full representation. There are mechanisms to change the EU. The elected Parliament has seen its powers expanded.

Is it a free market if you run a gunboat up the Yangtze?

And consider this, until 1944 the world reserve currency was the Pound Sterling. A recently unearthed document from Bretton Woods describes that by the moment you could see the Empire dissolving. Nothing particularly free market about it.

Britain had a choice to join the community but there was no choice at Breton Wood, or later when Keynes was made to beg, or at Suez. Britain had a choice e to join (and was denied twice), and they have full representation. There are mechanisms to change the EU. The elected Parliament has seen its powers expanded.

Is Canada an empire or Australia or any developed country outside the EU?

Empires are closed loops where colonies are forced to trade with the master state on beneficial terms and cannot go outside to get a better deal from the master state’s competition. That’s a lot more what being part of the single-market looks like than the wide world outside it.

The American experiment has always been about empire busting. Busting ourselves out of that closed loop to gain access to less expensive goods and better prices for our production, but also to set loose our restrained capital rather than having it drained off to British monopolies.

Now the UK finds itself unintentionally in that same situation. With the chance to access to less expensive but still globally accepted quality goods, or to continue to have them blocked by EU regulation that has no rational basis other than to protect EU businesses. With the potential to sell UK production not just for better prices but to a massively larger global market, on terms that align the interests of the UK and their trading partners, not the rest of the EU. With a capability to passport financial and professional services globally rather than being limited only to Europe.

The only thing worse than being a big fish in a small pond with your growth limited by your environment, is being a medium fish in a small pond where you’re equally limited but also not in charge. There’s a big scary ocean next door with lots of good and bad in it, where the UK can still be a medium fish. But what’s different is there’s lots more room to grow & experiment & find the formula that works best for the UK.

Agreeing to a deal that’s worse than being inside the EU plus looks like it leads to the separation of NI & Scotland, that’s a bad choice. But staying inside the EU where the UK ends up with salaries so much less than places like the US or Canada is also not a workable solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk