[cherdano]

shyams, on 2016-June-20, 05:00, said:

1. What is the EU?
It is more than what Arend has described.
--- I would say that Arend has described the European Economic Community (also called the 'common market'). This is merely a subset of the EU.
--- There is a VERY STRONG support in the UK for the common market. And if there is a cost of doing so (e.g. common standards, contribution to the EU budget), we mostly tend to accept it.

However, the EU is also a huge political construct. And it is not the EC bureaucracy I’m talking about – it is the political class. They drive the “big decisions” within the EU – e.g. how to deal with the refugee crisis (“let’s ask Merkel”), how to deal with Greece economic crisis (“let’s ask Merkel”), what about ‘ever closer union’ (“let’s ask Hollande and Merkel”). This often makes a parody of the entire democratic foundations that the EU prides itself on.

First of all, thank you for your thoughts.
To me, the discussion about the refugee crisis still looks very much like a bunch of individual actors (states) deciding getting together in order to try to solve a problem that affects all of them. That's exactly why it matters what Merkel thinks, and not what the EU commissioner thinks. To put it differently: if Brexit succeeds, and there is another refugee crisis in 2019, don't you think the UK would also be invited to the table to join the discussion?

[shyams]

cherdano, on 2016-June-20, 12:34, said:

To me, the discussion about the refugee crisis still looks very much like a bunch of individual actors (states) deciding getting together in order to try to solve a problem that affects all of them. That's exactly why it matters what Merkel thinks, and not what the EU commissioner thinks. To put it differently: if Brexit succeeds, and there is another refugee crisis in 2019, don't you think the UK would also be invited to the table to join the discussion?

We are not in disagreement here. However, to clarify, my point was not about the role of the EU commissioner in the refugee crisis decision-making (It's probably not for him to decide).
It was that ONE leader (Mrs. Merkel) took both the decisions re. the crisis (initially saying "we're open to any numbers", then doing a volte face 6-8 months later to do a deal with Turkey that artificially bars refugees from landing within the EU).
Perhaps a more constructive dialogue among leaders of 5-7 most influential nations within the EU would have led to a better decision on both occasions.

[onoway]

I have to wonder about one thing. Over and over it becomes pretty clear that however the system is set up, in reality Angela Merkel has been the decisive figure in most of the most dramatic issues that have faced the EU. So.. what happens when she retires? Who has the strength of will and commitment ( right or wrong) that she has, and what would be the result of someone getting in there like a more socially sophisticated Farage? How many people in history who have had access to such power, haven't sooner or later, grown to abuse it?

Oh, and as an example of constraints imposed by the EU, what farmers can grow is now limited, so that ( as an example) a British firm specializing in restoration of historic properties had to break the law and run the risk of fines or possibly more, to grow a variety of rye that used to be grown traditionally for thatching. It is no longer permitted to buy sell trade or even give away that variety of cereal crop, although it seems if you already have it you are allowed to grow it, you just can't use any of it except on your own property.

This only makes sense if you are trying to force people into buying the newer varieties, good for seed companies, not so good for diversity and resilience ( since many new varieties are derived from very similar genetics) and certainly not indicative of enhanced freedom but rather the opposite. Just sayin' .

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2016-June-19, 22:39, said:

5) aGAIN i ASK HOW DO YOU FIRE THOSE THAT GOVERN YOU OR DO YOU CARE?

Happens all the time. It's called an election.

[Vampyr]

In the UK the idea of public service is still a real idea. The term "civil servant" is very much in use. Those who hold political or administrative offices are there to serve us. The unelected EU officials feel a lot more like political overlords than servants.

I think that some of the "leave" vote is based not just on facts but on emotion, on the return of sovereignty to our shores. The "remain" camp could have focused earlier on the good the EU do (for sure they have done some good things) but perhaps this was too difficult after Cameron's snub. The whining and hand-wringing and vagueness about how it might be bad to leave, though, was unlikely to win the hearts and minds of the British people.

It is a pity that the EU could not have stayed a free-trade arrangement; failing that, it is a pity that Cameron wasn't given a deal. If he had been, Bremain would be winning by a landslide. It may still win though; there could be a sort of "Bradley Effect" in the polling, with voters in the end too afraid to vote against the status quo.

[WellSpyder]

Vampyr, on 2016-June-21, 00:19, said:

In the UK the idea of public service is still a real idea. The term "civil servant" is very much in use. Those who hold political or administrative offices are there to serve us. The unelected EU officials feel a lot more like political overlords than servants.

Very interested to see someone else articulate this view. Having been a UK civil servant for around a dozen years, and also been involved in a number of meetings with EU officials in Brussels, I found myself feeling quite strongly that there was a difference of approach between UK civil servants trying to do their job as best they could and EU officials seeing their job as being about personal aggrandisement. No doubt this was and is very unfair, probably on both sides, but it certainly has an impact on how desirable it feels to be "ruled from Brussels".

[Al_U_Card]

WellSpyder, on 2016-June-21, 05:01, said:

"ruled from Brussels".

Power sprouts from Brussels? Ouch

Meanwhile, George Soros and Nouriel Roubini predict gloom and doom if Brexit occurs.

Now they couldn't be wrong, could they?

They surely have big, crystal balls.

[Trinidad]

WellSpyder, on 2016-June-21, 05:01, said:

Very interested to see someone else articulate this view. Having been a UK civil servant for around a dozen years, and also been involved in a number of meetings with EU officials in Brussels, I found myself feeling quite strongly that there was a difference of approach between UK civil servants trying to do their job as best they could and EU officials seeing their job as being about personal aggrandisement. No doubt this was and is very unfair, probably on both sides, but it certainly has an impact on how desirable it feels to be "ruled from Brussels".

I think civil servants from any EU country would look upon the EU civil servants as 'quite different'. The reason is simple: every EU country has its own political culture.

The British political system is (alert: views from a continental perspective!) the least democratic in the entire EU:
There is no proportional representation due to the district system.
The cabinet ministers are members of parliament, creating a dependent relationship between the governing body (the government) and the controlling body (parliament).

It is fine and understandable for a British civil servant to think that the British civil servants are best, but that doesn't mean that it is objectively true.

There is a big difference between 'different' and 'worse'.

Rik

[1eyedjack]

Trinidad, on 2016-June-21, 05:33, said:

I think civil servants from any EU country would look upon the EU civil servants as 'quite different'. The reason is simple: every EU country has its own political culture.

The British political system is (alert: views from a continental perspective!) the least democratic in the entire EU:
There is no proportional representation due to the district system.
The cabinet ministers are members of parliament, creating a dependent relationship between the governing body (the government) and the controlling body (parliament).

It is fine and understandable for a British civil servant to think that the British civil servants are best, but that doesn't mean that it is objectively true.

There is a big difference between 'different' and 'worse'.

Rik

I fear that you may be confusing politicians with civil servants. They are different. Yes Minister is compulsory viewing.

[Trinidad]

1eyedjack, on 2016-June-21, 06:05, said:

I fear that you may be confusing politicians with civil servants. They are different. Yes Minister is compulsory viewing.

I was referring to the way Vampyr uses the term, which I thought was the framework of the discussion (emphasis mine):

Vampyr, on 2016-June-21, 00:19, said:

In the UK the idea of public service is still a real idea. The term "civil servant" is very much in use. Those who hold political or administrative offices are there to serve us.

I think I watched most episodes of 'Yes, Minister' and 'Yes Prime-Minister', but the idea that this is compulsary viewing is rather Brittish. Other countries have their own way of depicting the relation between politics and administration. But, while we are talking 'Yes, Minister': Apart from showing painfully accurately how the administration influences (if not 'rules') the Brittish government, 'Yes, Minister' also illustrates very nicely how Brittish ministers are mixed (if not 'torn') between governing (as a minister) and controlling the government (as an elected MP).

But all these details are not so relevant. What is relevant is that it is entirely normal for a Brittish civil servant to look upon EU civil servants as an entirely different breed. That is because there is a difference between how British civil service works and how civil service works in other European countries. Not better/worse, just different.

Rik

[WellSpyder]

Trinidad, on 2016-June-21, 05:33, said:

I think civil servants from any EU country would look upon the EU civil servants as 'quite different'. The reason is simple: every EU country has its own political culture.

The British political system is (alert: views from a continental perspective!) the least democratic in the entire EU:
There is no proportional representation due to the district system.
The cabinet ministers are members of parliament, creating a dependent relationship between the governing body (the government) and the controlling body (parliament).

It is fine and understandable for a British civil servant to think that the British civil servants are best, but that doesn't mean that it is objectively true.

There is a big difference between 'different' and 'worse'.

Rik

I'm sure there is something in your comment that political cultures are simply different (or, more specifically, administrative cultures, since my point was intended to be specifically about officials rather than politicians). I'm not sure that is the whole story, though. I think the culture of the UK civil service changed between, say, the 1960s and the 1990s, partly perhaps as a result of Mrs Thatcher's attempts to roll back the frontiers of the state, and the notion that public spending is a "good thing" and that "government knows best" became less embedded in how things were done. What I saw of EU administration felt like a step backwards.

I'm a bit confused by the point you are making about parliamentary oversight of government, though. Surely you are not saying that is undemocratic or a bad thing, are you? Isn't oversight of the government by an elected body exactly how democracy is supposed to work? (I'm sure I have misunderstood something since your posts are always well-argued and thought-provoking.....)

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2016-June-21, 09:05, said:

I'm a bit confused by the point you are making about parliamentary oversight of government, though. Surely you are not saying that is undemocratic or a bad thing, are you? Isn't oversight of the government by an elected body exactly how democracy is supposed to work? (I'm sure I have misunderstood something since your posts are always well-argued and thought-provoking.....)

I think it is the fact that the members of the government are also MPs. in other countries, eg the US, the Executive Branch is completely separate from the Legislative Branch. And of course, a President could and often does have a minority of his party in Congress. So parliamentary oversight is OK but who is watching the watchers.

[Trinidad]

WellSpyder, on 2016-June-21, 09:05, said:

I'm a bit confused by the point you are making about parliamentary oversight of government, though. Surely you are not saying that is undemocratic or a bad thing, are you? Isn't oversight of the government by an elected body exactly how democracy is supposed to work? (I'm sure I have misunderstood something since your posts are always well-argued and thought-provoking.....)

Parliament is intended to oversee the government. In most (all except for the UK?) European countries, at the national level, government and parliament are separated.

In the UK, cabinet ministers can (must?) also be a member of parliament. This means that parliament is intertwined with the body it is supposed to oversee. Would you find it acceptable if the board of Unilever would be on the British Food Safety Board, deciding whether food is safe to consume?

Still, this is not relevant. The point is that things in the UK are different from things in Brussels. No big news: Things in Spain or Latvia are also different from things in Brussels. That is what happens when different systems work together. To present the fact that Brussels works in a different way than London as an argument against co-operation is silly: Or are all your colleagues clones of yourself?

Rik

[1eyedjack]

Parliamentary oversight, at least in the UK of secondary legislation, is a theory rather than a practice. The reality is that most legislation is secondary legislation and most of that legislation goes through "on the nod" with virtually no scrutiny. Even some of the primary legislation gets far less parliamentary time allotted for debate than it should.

Not sure that this has much bearing on Brexit. Perhaps it is an argument for Bremain.

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2016-June-22, 00:54, said:

In the UK, cabinet ministers can (must?) also be a member of parliament.

Can yes but not must. They can also be in the House of Lords. Occasionally a PM wants to appoint someone to cabinet from outside both houses and in in that case they receive a peerage. The last time I can remember this happening was Peter Mandelson. A person can also attend cabinet meetings without being a cabinet minister and in this case they do not need to be in either house.

As for parliamentary oversight, it is a fine idea but history shows that it is rarely effective. Tony Blair was often accused of bypassing cabinet through "armchair government" but it had little bearing on him as he was seen as a winner of elections and that is the only oversight that really counts at the end of the day. In practice, the ability of the government to "buy" executive positions in combination with a voting system that provides minority governments (by popular vote) with huge majorities means that the only real scrutiny comes from the electorate.

[helene_t]

My own limited experience with eu bureaucracy is that it is very professional. I would say that uk is not bad either but the political interference in what ought to be nonpartisan professional decision making can be alarming. Oh well maybe I have just been unlucky and shouldn't stereotype so much.

It uses to be so that UK had very limited influence on the EU bureaucracy because British bureaucrats don't speak French, but my impression is that English is becoming more widely used. I think that if British civil servants believe they could do some things better then they should be more active in applying for jobs in Brussels.

[WellSpyder]

Trinidad, on 2016-June-22, 00:54, said:

The point is that things in the UK are different from things in Brussels. No big news: Things in Spain or Latvia are also different from things in Brussels. That is what happens when different systems work together. To present the fact that Brussels works in a different way than London as an argument against co-operation is silly: Or are all your colleagues clones of yourself?

I don't think I have presented the fact that Brussels works in a different way from London as an argument against cooperation at all. I agree that would be silly. But I think it is equally silly to assume that any way of doing something is as sensible as any other way of doing it. I have worked in different departments within the UK, too, which have very different bureaucratic cultures, and I have clear views about some of them being more effective from the point of view of serving the public interest than others.

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2016-June-22, 00:54, said:

Parliament is intended to oversee the government. In most (all except for the UK?) European countries, at the national level, government and parliament are separated.

It works like that in France where the presidental election and the parliamentary election are seperate. Similarly in Italy and Germany, but there the power of the president is much more limited, and in practice the connection between government and parlament are quite strong. Probably the influence from the government on the voting of the parlament majority is a bit weaker in the Netherlands and Germany than in the UK but is there really that much of a difference?

In Denmark, the ministers tend to be MPs but I think it matters little in practice since they don't have time to fullfill their MP role anyway and just vote with the party weep, or abstain.

[cherdano]

Maybe a few more thoughts on how Brexit would affect Universities, i.e. my corner of life.

In world-wide university rankings, British institutions very often do exceptionally well (4-5 in the top 20). Well, that's probably a bit of an overstatement by those rankings, but they are still excellent in international comparison. Where does this come from? Partly of course from great traditions, but partly it is due to the fact that British Universities are better at attracting international researchers and students than any other country in Europe. Part of that is due to language, part due to culture, part due to tradition.

A successful Brexit would undoubtedly make a dent into that ability to attract international talent. Maybe EU researchers would now need VISAs to work there. Maybe not. But even if not, it would send a message. If you follow Brexit coverage in the US media, there is hardly any article in the last few days that does not point to the infamous "Breaking point" campaign poster Nigel Farage. (In case anyone hasn't seen it yet - it has been compared to Nazi propaganda, and the comparison doesn't exactly look like the usual hyperbolic Goodwin's law comment: https://twitter.com/...397112923230212 .)

So a vote for Brexit would - whether that's fair or not - mostly be seen as a vote against immigrants. Whether the UK follows up with making immigration more difficult, it would certainly make it more difficult for any institution that wants to attract international talent.

[cherdano]

Finally, an episode of vox.com's "The Weeds" podcast (http://www.vox.com/2...control-orlando), as well as a few other articles. has sharpened my thinking about the consequences of Brexit a little bit.

Those who favour Brexit hope (I think) that the UK would still get access to the free market, without having to abide by EU regulations and the freedom of movement. That just seems unlikely. First, there is the example of Norway. They have to abide by both. And have to contribute to the budget as well - roughly 900 million Euros per year gross. And Norway's access to the single market was mostly about oil - something EU countries are happy to buy from Norway anyway.
One of the biggest export industries of the UK are, obviously, financial services. Netherlands would have a selfish interest to make that export more difficult, as Amsterdam would undoubtedly benefit as a financial center if it becomes more difficult for London to sell them to EU companies. To a lesser extent, the same holds for Germany and Frankfurt. (Frankfurt may not actually be a big international center of finance, but it certainly looks that way to Germans.) Meanwhile, Eastern European countries might see a Brexit vote as a slap in their face, as they may see the Brexit campaign as mostly targeting their citizens. There is just no guarantee that they would choose to act rationally and do what's in everyone's best interests; they might just opt to get in a bit of revenge and make things difficult for the UK - especially if the UK insists on making immigration more difficult.
And meanwhile, there is of course the incentive to make an example of the UK, in order to deter others who might think of seceding from the EU.

All in all, I find it difficult to imagine an outcome of negotiations where the UK continues to be able to export to the EU as freely as it does now, without having to abide by EU regulations and freedom of movement, and without contributing to the EU budget (obviously to a smaller extent than currently).