The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[taximan007]

Move to the Channel Islands 😉

Having lived here for nearly 5 years and not really having any plans to live in the UK for any significant length of time in the future, I would like to think the people will vote to stay in the EU. I know I would.

[teddybloat]

Weirdness. My post didnt save.

Anyways you have a far greater understanding of the machinations of europe than I could hope for.

So these are genuine questions that I have a real interest in hearing the answer to:

Could  member state nationalise their railways?

Wouold this not be in violation of the first rail directive?

Have the european commission ever initiated legal proceedings against countries that have not fully implemented its policies. Have countries ever been legally bound to change legislation after legal challenge by the european commission?

Cana body other than the european commission propose legislation at european level?

Can an individual vote on the election or removal of a member of the european commission?

Again my terminology might not be upto scratch, hopefully you get the gist of my admittedly ignorant lay mans terms

[mulhuzz]

Weirdness. My post didnt save.

Anyways you have a far greater understanding of the machinations of europe than I could hope for.

So these are genuine questions that I have a real interest in hearing the answer to:

Could  member state nationalise their railways?

Wouold this not be in violation of the first rail directive?

Have the european commission ever initiated legal proceedings against countries that have not fully implemented its policies. Have countries ever been legally bound to change legislation after legal challenge by the european commission?

Cana body other than the european commission propose legislation at european level?

Can an individual vote on the election or removal of a member of the european commission?

Again my terminology might not be upto scratch, hopefully you get the gist of my admittedly ignorant lay mans terms

These are some excellent questions and worth answering. I'll make some coffee and finish watching GoT and then get back to you

[mulhuzz]

Could  member state nationalise their railways?

Wouold this not be in violation of the first rail directive?

The Railway directive doesn't require privatisation, just liberalisation/de-monopolisation and provides for equality of access by splitting the operator of the infrastructure from the trains running on the track. So theoretically, yes, you could nationalise the railway, if you thought that was a good idea. As long as you had separation of network owner and network user. Note also that it's optional for urban passenger services and serves mainly to ensure the easy movement of freight.

if you said, 'we want to create British Rail again, and only British Rail trains can run on British Rail tracks, then that would be incongruent with EU law, but also incongruent with competition law in the UK as well - if you wanted to create a special class and derogate there as well then it's a bit weird.

Short answer: yes, you can nationalise the railways if you want to. in fact, Deutsche Bahn (GER) and SNCF (FRA) - the two largest rail companies in Europe, are state owned.

Have the european commission ever initiated legal proceedings against countries that have not fully implemented its policies. Have countries ever been legally bound to change legislation after legal challenge by the european commission?

absolutely, this happens quite often. Just like the judicial review method in UK law allows for people to hold govt/pub bodies to account for their own implementation of law/decisions. it's an enforcement procedure eventually ruled on by the ECJ. Note that the position of being legally bound is something that was transferred sovereignty on accession. Imagine you gave me power of attorney over your poker stars account. You couldn't well complain when I spanked it all off playing spin and goes! At every stage in the EU lawmaking process, Member States directly have input. There's no imposition here. A good overview looks like this:

Click to see full-size image.

Cana body other than the european commission propose legislation at european level?

yes, access has broadened significantly in recent(ish) years in response to the idea that the Commission was too powerful. however, the commission still acts at the behest of the council or suggestion of parliament, there are still some issues surrounding how proposed legislation is introduced. Means: Parliament needs more power, should be a direct 'order' not just 'suggestion'.

The usual legislative process looks like this. Remember though that the commission often acts for the Council or the Parliament:

Can an individual vote on the election or removal of a member of the european commission?

Absolutely. If the European Parliament tabled a motion of no confidence in the Commission (they've never done this, but threatened it once and the whole Commission resigned anyway of their own accord!) then absolutely there would be a vote on this. The parliament also has to approve the commissioners as well, by the way.

[teddybloat]

Wow.

Thanks for that.

It still does smack of a top down imposition tbh. We have no direct vote on the people who comprise the commission, and although there does seem to be elected influence in terms of recommendations (?) by the council who sit below it, it seems far removed from my vote.

ultimately they still appear to be a powerful group with no direct accountablilty to the people. I fully agree that elected governments have granted them that power, but that doesnt change the fact that many will find the situation unpalettable.

given a direct vote on the situation I would not grant any soveriegnty to any group that debates / legislates / votes outside of this country's borders. I see an in-out referendum as being my chance to actually have a direct say on the matter.

My point of privatisation is that it seems country has to offer certain public services out to competition or tender to private companies. This to me is an imposition and I welcome the chance to opt out of such a system.

As I alluded to, I enjoy and endorse many of tge benefits of living in a country withun europe. I know you stated that the human rights act was not drawn up bynthe eu, but surely the eu deserve credit for its implementation? And I do believe it to be a wonderful thing, but the democratic deficit that I feel is too great for me to want anything to do with it.

Although you have gone someway to moderate much of my ire and corrected many of my misunderstandings.

The opacity of europe level politics is a huge problem. It allows myths to build and propogate I guess

[RED-DOG]

Dear Red Dog, good news, whatever happens you'll still be a citizen of Europe, even better, you'll still be a citizen of the world

Well I suppose what I mean is at the moment I can choose to live and/or work in a European country, ergo, I am a citizen of Europe. Not so the world.

[teddybloat]

Typing on a phone + fat fingers, apologies for the typos...

[The Baron]

Poll it? Quite enjoyed the general election poll.

[doubleup]

Without being pedantic, I'm not sure what being pro-European even means

Are Norway and Swtizerland anti European, would we necessarily be anti European by not being a member of the EU ?

It's this kind of nonsense as well as daft statements about free trade renegotiations (just scare mongering nonsense - every country wants to trade with the UK, ldo) that will turn a lot of people pro the out campaign.

I'm not pro leaving the EU (I just don't care either way really) but as soon as I hear a ridic doomsday scenario about what will happen if we want to leave my blood literally boils and I want to leave immeds

Dear Red Dog, good news, whatever happens you'll still be a citizen of Europe, even better, you'll still be a citizen of the world

Exactly, if we make good shit people will always buy it. Also they need our trade as much we need theirs.

Mulhuzz has already made some good points, but both of you don't seem to realise that trade barriers are political and whether people like to buy "good shit" is irrelevant if they live in a country that won't allow you to sell your "good shit" as it isn't on *the list* or they can't afford your "good shit" because it's trebled in price from tariffs. 

The UK has virtually no trade agreements - that is a fact and ignoring it won't make it go away.  There will be a collapse of investment if the issue isn't addressed - no one is going to make products that can't be exported easily and other countries will be making this point very clearly to investors.

The government is making the possibility of leaving the EU a reality, so they should be clearly stating what trade relationships replace it.  and btw the conditions of EEA membership include freedom of movement and compliance with directives, so if that's plan B for trade, we might as well stay in.

 

[DungBeetle]

The tariffs won't just work one way.  We'll just hammer the EU produce in retaliation and nobody wins.  Since the EU is a net exporter to the UK that will be something they will be mindful of avoiding.

I fully agree with you though about the sheer work involved in drafting adequate trade agreements (which will be on worse terms as well) and the fact this isn't discussed.

[BigAdz]

As part of my job I have to go to Brussels every few months to sit on a working Committee for a European Concrete Association(I know).

From all I see and witness there, it is clear we need to be a "part" of Europe from a trade perspective, but the thing that erks me most is this same bunch of people, make the rules that make bizarre Human Rights decisions, creates so much red tape, it stifles so much development, and most of it is all designed so they can keep their over paid and well pampered egos jobs for another few years. When you listen to some of the ways in which the officialdom speak, you know much of it is designed to just stagnate any process, and just gluepot any issue that needs a resolution.

That said, Brussels is great and i love each trip there!

[Woodsey]

Without being pedantic, I'm not sure what being pro-European even means

Are Norway and Swtizerland anti European, would we necessarily be anti European by not being a member of the EU ?

It's this kind of nonsense as well as daft statements about free trade renegotiations (just scare mongering nonsense - every country wants to trade with the UK, ldo) that will turn a lot of people pro the out campaign.

I'm not pro leaving the EU (I just don't care either way really) but as soon as I hear a ridic doomsday scenario about what will happen if we want to leave my blood literally boils and I want to leave immeds

Dear Red Dog, good news, whatever happens you'll still be a citizen of Europe, even better, you'll still be a citizen of the world

Exactly, if we make good shit people will always buy it. Also they need our trade as much we need theirs.

Mulhuzz has already made some good points, but both of you don't seem to realise that trade barriers are political and whether people like to buy "good shit" is irrelevant if they live in a country that won't allow you to sell your "good shit" as it isn't on *the list* or they can't afford your "good shit" because it's trebled in price from tariffs.  

The UK has virtually no trade agreements - that is a fact and ignoring it won't make it go away.  There will be a collapse of investment if the issue isn't addressed - no one is going to make products that can't be exported easily and other countries will be making this point very clearly to investors.

The government is making the possibility of leaving the EU a reality, so they should be clearly stating what trade relationships replace it.  and btw the conditions of EEA membership include freedom of movement and compliance with directives, so if that's plan B for trade, we might as well stay in.

Then you make trade agreement like countries like Switzerland, Norway etc have. I haven't made my mind up which way I would vote yet so I'm open minded depending on what Cameron presents to us. But I don't accept leaving is necessarily a bad thing, there will be ways around all this stuff.

[doubleup]

Norway and Switzerland are in the EEA so have to allow freedom of movement and abide by directives (the Swiss are in dispute about freedom of movement atm)

[Woodsey]

Norway and Switzerland are in the EEA so have to allow freedom of movement and abide by directives (the Swiss are in dispute about freedom of movement atm)

Not completely true.

https://www.gov.uk/eu-eea

[mulhuzz]

Re Switzerland and EEA - it's a technical difference to afford the Swiss being able to say they are independent which is important for them.

on the basis of the 'coverage' of being part of EEA or Single Market, there is no difference.