[One Degree]

Not on the points I mentioned. The Brexit campaign and all main Brexiteer figures state those things openly, repeatedly.



This is so vague that can mean anything you like.

I will accept your view on that. Yes, it is vague because it is based upon a very long term view of achieving local autonomy. What they are saying now is not really important compared to where their decisions lead them.
Most people are very short sighted and often don’t realize the step they are taking does not lead where they think it does. I don’t claim to be an expert in figuring this out, but my decisions are based upon my best guess.
So what happens in the next few years is not as important to me as where I believe the path eventually leads. Once we start in a direction, we tend to stick with it until something major changes it. Brexit is a major change that will change direction away from globalization. The fact people think differently does not really matter.
Anyway, enough of my philosophy. I have nothing pertinent to add to the immediate discussion.

[noemon]

Yes, it is vague because it is based upon a very long term view of achieving local autonomy. What they are saying now is not really important compared to where their decisions lead them.

We can see where it's leading and it's on subsiding global capital on a massive scale, accelerating globalisation.

[One Degree]

We can see where it's leading and it's on subsiding global capital on a massive scale, accelerating globalisation.

I never claimed to be right, only that it was my best guess. If Brexit succeeds, and I give it a 50/50 chance, Time will determine which of us is right.

[noemon]

Trump has already given massive tax gifts to corporations as have the Tories and have pledged to turn Britain to global tax-haven headquarters, so we do not really need to wait for something to happen to read the writing in the wall. It seems to me that with some imaginary and abstract promise of anti-globalisation you are proliferating globalisation at unprecedented rates.

Globalisation is after all just American nationalism.

[One Degree]

Trump has already given massive tax gifts to corporations as have the Tories and have pledged to turn Britain to global tax-haven headquarters, so we do not really need to wait for something to happen to read the writing in the wall. It seems to me that with some imaginary and abstract promise of anti-globalisation you are proliferating globalisation at unprecedented rates.

The chance that could be true doesn’t change anything. Brexit plus Trump withdrawing from international groups is likely to determine its own path regardless of what their plans are. They don’t necessarily control what they set in motion. Brexit and Trump’s election are both evidence of getting something they didn’t expect. We already see this snowballing. No one really controls it at this point which is why we see them desperately trying to. Events set their own end goals through momentum. This is why ‘inaction’ is the best weapon against it. The momentum needs to be bled off.

Globalisation is after all just American nationalism.

Originally yes, but not anymore. The US swamp is just one member of the team now.

[noemon]

Originally yes, but not anymore.

It is very much so still as we can clearly see in Venezuela, Syria and all around the world.

Brexit and Trump’s election are both evidence of getting something they didn’t expect.

What did they not expect? electing the same old neoliberal conservatives as they have done for the past 30 years? Just because Trump is using racial hatred to score bonus points with racists, it does not mean we have had a paradigm shift against globalisation when we clearly have not.

And lastly racism does not mean anti-globalism. Racism did not stop the US from expanding its empire and globalisation for the past 80 years, the US had racial segregation but it was still preaching globalisation across the world.

[Littaleng_Lander]

Does that mean that your time-period does not actually exist? Or that it does not matter that the UK has abstained(not vetoed as you claim below) from EU legislation since initiating article 50 because clearly it sees no point whatsoever?

The UK did not veto anything after article 50 was initiated. Your statement is false.

I have no idea how many of the UK's vetoes were outvoted in the period between the EU referendum and the date Article 50 became law 28.03.2017, and how many after that date. The Express article is silent on this point;

Since last June’s referendum, the UK has taken part in 102 votes of the EU’s decision-making Council of Ministers, said pro-Brexit group Change Britain.

However, the issue for me is that while the UK is still in the EU, our government's objections were outvoted;

EVERY European Union measure to which the UK has formally objected since last year’s referendum vote has been passed into law, new research has shown

.

Also, the article makes it clear that, under the rules, abstaining is regarded as opposing;
Quote (my bold);

Of these, the UK voted against or abstained - which is also regarded under the rules as opposing - 17 of the measures, or about 17 per cent

[noemon]

our government's objections were outvoted;

They weren't outvoted because the government did not raise any objections as far as we can tell.

Also, the article makes it clear that, under the rules, abstaining is regarded as opposing;
Quote (my bold);

In all parliaments and all assemblies the abstentions are counted with the nays, not with the yays. But that does not mean that the UK has raised any objections. Abstaining from a vote is not objecting. The UK after Brexit has not bothered with EU business, that is on the UK not on the EU.

[Littaleng_Lander]

Littaleng_Lander wrote:
our government's objections were outvoted;

noemon wrote:
They weren't outvoted because the government did not raise any objections as far as we can tell.

Littaleng_Lander wrote:
Also, the article makes it clear that, under the rules, abstaining is regarded as opposing;
Quote (my bold);

noemon wrote:
In all parliaments and all assemblies the abstentions are counted with the nays, not with the yays. But that does not mean that the UK has raised any objections. Abstaining from a vote is not objecting. The UK after Brexit has not bothered with EU business, that is on the UK not on the EU.

Argument that has to resort to semantics, the use and meaning of abstaining, opposing, objecting, and 'with the nays', seems unlikely to throw any illumination on the issue, which is;

The Express wrote:
EVERY European Union measure to which the UK has formally objected since last year’s referendum vote has been passed into law, new research has shown.

noemon wrote
The UK after Brexit has not bothered with EU business,...

I reiterate, we are still in the EU. In any case, the article cites measures since the 2016 referendum. That includes votes on EU proposals before Article 50 became law.

[noemon]

Argument that has to resort to semantics, the use and meaning of abstaining, opposing, objecting, and 'with the nays', seems unlikely to throw any illumination on the issue, which is;.

This is quite illuminating on how the Express tabloid and Vote Leave are playing with semantics in order to fool the British public:

In all parliaments and all assemblies the abstentions are counted with the nays, not with the yays. But that does not mean that the UK has raised any objections. Abstaining from a vote is not objecting. The UK after Brexit has not bothered with EU business, that is on the UK not on the EU.

Every time Britain fails to show up to a vote, it's not everyone else's fault, nor should it be assumed that Britain is in disagreement.

[Littaleng_Lander]

Littaleng_Lander wrote:
Argument that has to resort to semantics, the use and meaning of abstaining, opposing, objecting, and 'with the nays', seems unlikely to throw any illumination on the issue, which is

noemon wrote:
This is quite illuminating on how the Express tabloid and Vote Leave are playing with semantics in order to fool the British public:

According to the posts in this exchange, you seem to be their equal in that respect.

noemon wrote:
In all parliaments and all assemblies the abstentions are counted with the nays, not with the yays. But that does not mean that the UK has raised any objections. Abstaining from a vote is not objecting. The UK after Brexit has not bothered with EU business, that is on the UK not on the EU.

See what I mean. The semantics of abstaining, objecting, and 'with the nays' to obfuscate.

noemon wrote:
Every time Britain fails to show up to a vote, it's not everyone else's fault, nor should it be assumed that Britain is in disagreement.

I would suggest if the UK wanted the measures it would vote for them, not abstain in the knowledge that the abstention would, according to the rules, be recorded as opposing.

[noemon]

According to the posts in this exchange, you seem to be their equal in that respect.See what I mean. The semantics of abstaining, objecting, and 'with the nays' to obfuscate.I would suggest if the UK wanted the measures it would vote for them, not abstain in the knowledge that the abstention would, according to the rules, be recorded as opposing.

Clearing up Vote Leave's evident propaganda and laying it bare for all to see does not make me anything like them.

If they were slightly honest about their article, they would have

a) Informed the public of which specific measures Britain has abstained from and which she has voted against.
b) They would have specified on the amount of legislation. They claim 17 measures, but are these 17 pieces of legislation?, or are some of these measures part of the same piece of legislation? are these all even about legislation or could some of them be about foreign affairs, like for example the EU's position on Yemen? Again, they say nothing.

This makes the article totally unreliable to say the least, and it makes its headline(UK objecting), evidently false.

[Edwardo]

The EU use exceptional treatment of those who work for them and classy impression tactics to keep us floating around in their man-made bubble they use to dictate to all of Europe. Now that people around Europe are standing up to these fuckers, the EU are disappointed and seek to suck the life and soul out of every nation that stands up to them including us. If only we had someone like Farage in charge of the negotiations (and I’m taking about someone of his mentality and character), we wouldn’t be quivering to these arseholes, but they would be quivering to us.

[Littaleng_Lander]

noemon wrote:
In all parliaments and all assemblies the abstentions are counted with the nays, not with the yays. But that does not mean that the UK has raised any objections. Abstaining from a vote is not objecting. The UK after Brexit has not bothered with EU business, that is on the UK not on the EU

Littaleng_Lander wrote:
According to the posts in this exchange, you seem to be their equal in that respect. See what I mean. The semantics of abstaining, objecting, and 'with the nays' to obfuscate. I would suggest if the UK wanted the measures it would vote for them, not abstain in the knowledge that the abstention would, according to the rules, be recorded as opposing.

noemon wrote:
Clearing up Vote Leave's evident propaganda and laying it bare for all to see does not make me anything like them.

If they were slightly honest about their article, they would have

a) Informed the public of which specific measures Britain has abstained from and which she has voted against.
b) They would have specified on the amount of legislation. They claim 17 measures, but are these 17 pieces of legislation?, or are some of these measures part of the same piece of legislation? are these all even about legislation or could some of them be about foreign affairs, like for example the EU's position on Yemen? Again, they say nothing.

This makes the article totally unreliable to say the least, and it makes its headline(UK objecting), evidently false.

I concede the Express article is short on details. However, this may be down to the Express not the campaign group Change Britain.

In any case, I accept the conclusions of Change Britain. You may differ. That's your right.

[Steve_American]

Yanis Varoufakis describes the Eurogroup

I copied the below from under the youtube video itself, but it isn't in the video.
In the video he describes how meetings go and viciously attacks that structure as undemocratic.

Varoufakis on the Eurogroup:
"The Eurogroup Meeting of 27th June 2015 will not go down as a proud moment in Europe's history. Ministers turned down the Greek government's request that the Greek people should be granted a single week during which to deliver a Yes or No answer to the institutions' proposals — proposals crucial for Greece's future in the Eurozone. The very idea that a government would consult its people on a problematic proposal put to it by the institutions was treated with incomprehension and often with disdain bordering on contempt. I was even asked: "How do you expect common people to understand such complex issues?" Indeed, democracy did not have a good day in yesterday's Eurogroup meeting! But nor did European institutions. After our request was rejected, the Eurogroup President broke with the convention of unanimity (issuing a statement without my consent) and even took the dubious decision to convene a follow up meeting without the Greek minister, ostensibly to discuss the "next steps."

Can democracy and a monetary union coexist? Or must one give way? This is the pivotal question that the Eurogroup has decided to answer by placing democracy in the too-hard basket. So far, one hopes.
.......
At that point I asked for legal advice, from the secretariat, on whether a Eurogroup statement can be issued without the conventional unanimity and whether the President of the Eurogroup can convene a meeting without inviting the finance minister of a Eurozone member-state. I received the following extraordinary answer: “The Eurogroup is an informal group. Thus it is not bound by Treaties or written regulations. While unanimity is conventionally adhered to, the Eurogroup President is not bound to explicit rules.” I let the reader comment on this remarkable statement."

[Steve_American]

@ noemon,
It has been 2 days since I posted the above video.
Are you going to rebut it or agree that the EU has problems?

[noemon]

Why would I rebut a video(that I liked), and which clearly proves my point that I have been making to you for several days? You have either misunderstood the video or forgot our entire conversation. As I have told you numerous times the EU was never the issue, the issue was the elected governments of the national countries that make up the eurozone. The finance ministers of the eurozone that make up the Eurogroup.

Here is what I wrote to you and Varoufakis in your video confirmed everything I told you, namely that the Commission was totally irrelevant and the Eurogroup(finance minister of the eurozone) the most relevant:

Of course yours or Mitchell's argument has been completely deconstructed and trashed.
a)The Commission did not even have the extra powers back in 2008 or in its lead up, powers it received in 2013 to impose anything on anyone, even when she did receive these extra powers in 2013 she followed the procedure of the Council giving her the go-ahead instead of acting on its own. I stated with good reason that the Commission cannot act on its own without getting the mandate from the Council(national governments) and provided proof to that effect. Rugoz showed that due to the reverse qualified majority voting that was adopted in 2013, the Commission can move forward without necessarily requiring Council mandate, but in practise she never made use of that and sought Council approval.

b) It was not the Commission's fault the crisis states went bankrupt and prostrated themselves before the banks, in fact it is exactly the opposite for if the crisis states had followed the commission's recommendations to not have national debt over 60% of their GDP they would not have gone bankrupt.

c) It was not the Commission's business to figure out solutions, it was the Council's(national Prime Minister's) & the Euroroup's (national Finance Ministers) business as we all witnessed live before our eyes. It was the neoliberal national governments of the EU countries that agreed and then imposed the austerity, not the Commission.

The Eurogroup being "informal" means that it needs to be brought under formal EU structures, formalising the Eurogroup within the EU means supporting the EU and arguing for more EU rather than less. Finance ministers informally meeting outside an EU structure was what was happening before the EU, what is still happening in the EU because the EU is too weak compared to national governments(as I have been telling you) and what will be happening when the EU is gone. That is what Varoufakis kept on arguing for and that is why they got rid of him. The Eurogroup is the last and only place where people like the German finance minister gets to do whatever he wants without the EU constraining them with her rules of consensus. That is precisely what Varoufakis is explicitly saying in your video.

[Steve_American]

@noemon,
Ineresting take on what he said.
My take was that we finance ministers were kept in the dark and spoon fed what they were going to rubberstamp.
The IMF, ECB, and whatever the 3rd one was didn't provide any info on paper and talked for 30 min. [10 min. each] and then the decision was reached.
They got rid of him because he complained and told the truth.
This is my take.
YVDV your vision does vary.

[noemon]

That is because you clearly did not follow the events when they were unravelling. If you think that Wolfgang Schauble(German Finance minister) and Angela Merkel were spoonfed stuff from the ECB and the IMF, then clearly you have read Varoufakis and all these events quite wrong. Schauble and Merkel would at times dismiss everyone from the room(including the ECB, IMF and all the other finance ministers) and sort things out in person with the Greeks. Can you conceive of what that actually means in practise?

When Varoufakis says "finance ministers were kept in the dark" he means that he was kept in the dark because he was not a neoliberal, like the rest of them and Schauble would not inform him like he was informing and lobbying the rest, that is why he was eventually ordered to depart the room itself and that is why everyone was voting with Schauble and not with Varoufakis during these sham meetings. What he means is that this informality, where a finance minister cannot be informed before hand formally through the EU is what is wrong. Varoufakis explicitly wants to strengthen EU institutions. The rest were informed informally through national channels and were ready to vote with whatever Schauble had in mind. Schauble and Merkel are rightwing neoliberals elected by the German people, not EU actors.

YVDV your vision does vary.

Can you please avoid abbreviations? I do not understand your abbreviation and I assume noone reading this thread understands it either.

My take was that we finance ministers were kept in the dark and spoon fed what they were going to rubberstamp.
The IMF, ECB, and whatever the 3rd one was didn't provide any info on paper and talked for 30 min. [10 min. each] and then the decision was reached.

And who was forcing the finance ministers to vote with Schauble and not with Varoufakis?

They got rid of him because he complained and told the truth.

He said all these after he was removed so evidently that cannot be the reason. Which truth are you referring? They got rid of him, just like they had got rid of Papandreou a few years earlier and whom Varoufakis was advising before he joined SYRIZA and became a Finance Minister, and they did it because they were both the only pro-EU social-democrats with the balls and intellect to stand up to the Germans and call for Eurobonds and EU solutions to EU problems instead of ad-hoc solutions involving the IMF, invented by the Germans.

Lastly if you have any doubt whatsoever about my interpretation, then allow me to show you what Varoufakis is clearly stating himself:

Wolfgang Schäuble may heave left the finance ministry but his policy for turning the eurozone into an iron cage of austerity, that is the very antithesis of a democratic federation, lives on.

What is remarkable about Dr Schäuble’s tenure was how he invested heavily in maintaining the fragility of the monetary union, rather than eradicating it in order to render the eurozone macro-economically sustainable and resilient. Why did Dr Schäuble aim at maintaining the eurozone’s fragility? Why was he, in this context, ever so keen to maintain the threat of Grexit? The simple answer is: Because a state of permanent fragility was instrumental to his strategy for using the threat of expulsion from the euro (or even of Germany’s withdrawal from it) to discipline the deficit countries – chiefly France.

Deep in Dr Schäuble’ thinking there was the belief that, as a federation is infeasible, the euro is a glorified fixed exchange rate regime. And the only way of maintaining discipline within such a regime was to keep alive the threat of expulsion or exit. But to keep that threat alive, the eurozone could not be allowed to develop the instruments and institutions that would stop it from being fragile. Thus, the eurozone’s permanent fragility was, from Dr Schäuble’s perspective an end-in-itself, rather than a failure.

[Istanbuller]

It is funny to see that nobody mentioned about European Union's failure on human right issues, specifically related to Syria.

Brussels did not sided with Syrian rebels against Dictator Assad.