BREXIT | AN APPEAL TO THE ‘DON’T KNOWS’


Sovereignty

Dedication

This post is dedicated to my dear friend and Remain voter, Doctor A and his wonderful, feisty partner, J. Doctor A believes from his heart that the decision of the majority of British voters – that the UK should leave the European Union – was a dreadful mistake; one that we’ll live to regret. I respect Doctor A’s affection for the European Union, but I disagree with his point of view. On the other hand, Doctor A thinks my own views are ‘wrong-headed’. I don’t seek to change the minds of people who voted Remain and who are content to hold the view that the Brexit decision was a mistake. However, I do want to make the case to the ‘Don’t Knows’; those people who are uncertain about whether it’s a good thing or not for the UK to leave the EU. I thought it might be interesting for Doctor A and J to read my pitch to the ‘Don’t Knows’, if only to confirm that I’m ‘wrong-headed’ 😀 

sovereign · adjective 1 possessing supreme or ultimate power 2 (of a nation or its affairs) acting or done independently and without outside interference.

The Debating Challenge

One of the greatest challenges and frustrations about the debate concerning the UK’s membership of the European Union has been this: each side of the debate has been arguing its respective case from entirely different premises. Put simply, the Remain side has based its arguments for the UK to remain in the EU on primarily economic and social issues; the Leave side has based its arguments for the UK to leave the EU on primarily political issues, especially the issues of democracy and sovereignty. Never the twain shall meet. Hence the enormous difficulties, verging on impossibility of achieving a compromise. Hence also the visceral nature of the debate both up to and since the EU Referendum. Each side has been screaming at the other in an alien language.

The Recipe Issue

Another challenge has been what I call ‘the recipe issue’. Remain lost the EU Referendum. However, the Remain side has sought to argue that honouring the Referendum result means that the UK should not Leave the EU but should be sort of 4% out of the EU – the difference between 52% Leave and 48% Remain. According to the losing side, leaving the EU should be a recipe comprising the UK being in the EU, but a little bit out of the EU. The Withdrawal Agreement (WA) was designed to reflect exactly this recipe approach; the WA was drafted in Brussels and its purpose was to make it easy for the UK – having nominally ‘left’ the EU – to slip back into the EU with ease once it became clear that the UK could not possibly survive outside of the EU. Incidentally, 167 countries around the world – that’s 85% of the planet’s nations – are outside of the EU and seem to get along well enough without the need to be tied to the political institutions of the European Union, but that’s another discussion.

What We Believe But Cannot Prove

There’s another element of the debate which I’ve found frustrating and it reminds me of the book, ‘What We Believe But Cannot Prove’ which I read some years ago. It’s a compilation of essays written by scientists and philosophers to whom the question was posed, ‘What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?’ I’m biased, of course, in favour of the Leave side of the argument. However, I get somewhat frustrated when people who would prefer the UK to Remain in the EU state unfounded beliefs about the nature and workings of the European Union. I find myself wondering if my interlocutor has actually researched the history, culture, structure and operating procedures of the EU (as I have, saddo that I am)?

For example, the ideas that the EU is essentially a benign institution – a sort of warm and fuzzy group hug; that the EU is a force for peace and prosperity without which European civilisation would collapse; that the EU has no aspirations to become a European superstate or an empire; that the EU has no intention of forming its own armed forces and so on. Often, I hear people make these types of assertions about the EU either without any evidence to support them, or in the face of evidence to the contrary. Membership of the EU becomes more of a heart-felt belief than a rational cost-benefit analysis. Indeed, I posit that for many (but not all), the thrust of the Remain argument is essentially of a religious nature; it doesn’t really matter that the hard benefits of EU membership past, present and future can’t necessarily be proven (see some relevant facts below); what really matters is that the European Union must surely be ‘a good thing’. After all, all of the promotional literature published by the European Union states clearly that the European Union is a good thing. What is there not to like about it?

The term ‘democracy’ first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens during classical antiquity. The word comes from ‘demos’ meaning ‘common people’ and ‘kratos’ meaning ‘strength’.

Wikipedia

The Leave Side of the Argument

To be fair, what about the Leave side of the argument? The belief –  can it be proved? – that democracy and national sovereignty trump EU membership. What are the facts to suggest that living in a free, democratic, sovereign nation state is better for its citizens than living in a federation? The EU is a federation without a demos; in other words, the EU was formed and is imposed on the 500 million people of Europe from the top down; it didn’t emerge democratically from the bottom up. Furthermore, you and I can’t vote for the de facto government of the EU, the European Commission, because the EU’s government is, well, unelected. The last great federation on Earth – another federation without a demos and with an unelected government, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – lasted for just 69 years.

The Rise of Populism

History suggests that the European Union is unsustainable. Indeed, so-called ‘populism’ is on the rise across the European continent; that’s a fact. Populism is used as a pejorative term for democracy. What’s happening in the European Union is that citizens of erstwhile sovereign nation states are coming to realise that being governed by an unelected, unaccountable oligarchy in some far-flung corner of the Union (Brussels) perhaps isn’t as great as the EU propaganda would have us believe. Together, history and the facts today suggest that the European Union as we know it could well be gone within a generation, and possibly within as little as a decade or so. Some argue that the EU’s longevity is shorter than that. That said, if you believe in the EU of course, you’ll conclude that the institution will be with us until kingdom come, and that the UK will be a worse place for not being a member of it.

The Case for National Sovereignty

What’s the evidence to suggest that living in a free, sovereign, nation-state democracy beats living in a federation without a demos under an unelected government? I’m tempted to say, well, it’s self-evident, isn’t it? Now we’re back to my opening remarks about the grounds on which one is arguing for or against EU membership. In my experience, if you voted Remain, issues of EU governance, politics and national sovereignty weren’t high on your list of decision-making priorities; as a Remainer you were and are concerned with the perceived adverse economic and social consequences of having the UK leave the EU.

For me the evidence for the benefits of nationhood, democracy and sovereignty is incontrovertible. The mere fact that the majority (85%) of the nations on Earth are not clamouring to form federations like the European Union is relevant. Being able directly to vote into and out of power those who govern us and who make our laws is a precious thing; so precious that almost 2 million British people died in World Wars I and II so that you and I could indeed determine who governs us here in the United Kingdom. It galls me that unelected, unaccountable EU President Jean-Claude Juncker tells me that, ‘There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties’. For me it is strange and difficult to understand why anyone would want to be governed by men like Jean-Claude Juncker. The same man, of course, who said, ‘When it becomes serious, you have to lie’. The issue for me is not that Mr Juncker holds these views; it’s that he has absolute power over me, because he and anyone like him who holds his office is unelected and, therefore, by definition unaccountable.

The Nation-State

Finally, it’s vital to understand the distinction between the nation-state and nationalism; there’s a tendency for critics of the Leave side of the EU/UK debate, deliberately or otherwise, to conflate the two. There’s a separate essay in here, so we won’t go there right now. I’m happy to quote the almost rabidly-Remain leaning philosopher, Professor A C Grayling who in his book, ‘The Meaning of Things’ opens a chapter on Nationalism with the words, ‘Nationalism is an evil. It causes wars, its roots lie in xenophobia and racism, it is a recent phenomenon – an invention of the last few centuries – which has been of immense service to demagogues and tyrants but to no one else’.

Richard Adlington, the novelist and poet wrote, ‘Patriotism is a lively sense of collective responsibility. Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on its dunghill’. I’m not in favour of nationalism, but I am in favour of patriotism and the nation-state. There are really only two basic forms of political order: independent nation states and imperialism. Powerful people within the European Union, through what they write and what they say, make no secret of their intentions to create a European empire.

empire · noun 1 an extensive group of states ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority 2 supreme political power

The Italian Machiavelli is generally credited with first use of the word ‘state’ in 1513 to mean a territorial, sovereign government. In 1690 the English philosopher John Locke argued that the state’s legitimacy was rooted in popular consent, and in 1762 the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed that the state owed its authority to the general will of the governed. So, the existence of the nation-state is justified so long as it enjoys the consent of its citizens, who may withdraw that consent if the state fails to fulfil its obligations. It’s a moot point whether as an artificially constructed superstate the European Union would ever enjoy the consent of its 500 million citizens, 98% of whom today don’t relate to it as such. The rise of ‘populism’ (democracy) across the EU today is an indicator that perhaps the nascent United States of Europe lacks popular consent and, therefore, lacks legitimacy.

Democratic states typically base their legitimacy on the concept of popular sovereignty. According to this view, sovereignty belongs ultimately to the people – the citizens – who voluntarily make over some of their power to the state. The EU Referendum was a powerful example of the people of the United Kingdom asserting their sovereignty over the state.

Wrong-Headed

So, to conclude, I understand how frustrating it must be if you believe in the European Union but have lost the argument for the UK’s membership of that Union. I would feel the same way if our positions were reversed. Doctor A tells me that my views above are ‘wrong-headed’. In reply I would perhaps refer Doctor A to the words of pro-EU journalist Robert Peston. Mr Peston is on record as observing that Brexit voters were ‘on the right side of history. I basically take my hat off to [Brexit voters] because they have thrown all the cards up in the air, they don’t know yet how they’re going to land – but it was the right thing to do’. Well, for me certainly, voting for democracy and the recovery of the UK’s sovereignty was indeed the right thing to do, as ‘wrong-headed’ as it seems to at least one of my best friends.

——————————–

If your mind is made up about the benefits of the UK leaving the EU, or you are implacably in favour of the institution that is the European Union, please skip to the Comments section below. However, if you’re in the ‘Don’t Know’ brigade, please have a look at this selection of facts about the European Union.

THE EUROPEAN UNION | SOME FACTS

Demos. The EU’s own polls show that just 2% of EU citizens describe themselves as ‘only European’ – consistent with the EU lacking any sort of identifiable demos. The overwhelming majority (98%) of the EU’s 500 million citizens identify primarily with their own nation-states.

Getting Rich Quick. Becoming an MEP means that, owing to the EU’s attendance and expenses’ policies, you can become a euro-millionaire within the space of 5 years or less; get re-elected and, obviously, you quickly become a multi-millionaire. I invite you to investigate the remuneration policies of MEPs and EU bureaucrats; I guarantee that your jaw will drop. Lord Kinnock is a multi-millionaire due in large part to his years working in the European Union and the pension benefits he accrued as a result.

Fraud. The European Commission admits that the levels of fraud in the EU are probably around 5% of EU funding – that’s about €7 billion per year. Independent studies suggest that EU fraud is likely to be nearer 10% – 20%, ie around €13 billion to €26 billion per year. In the period 1994 to 2015 the EU’s Court of Auditors declared year-on-year that the EU’s ‘payments are not free from material errors’. Some argue that this means the EU’s financial probity is questionable. There are no external EU auditors. For comparison, the UK National Audit Office says fraud across UK government is equivalent to 0.02% of total expenditure ranging from £27.5 million to £72.9 million per year, depending on the source, from a total annual expenditure of £306 billion. Personally, I like the story of the EU project where a team tasked with repaving a one kilometre footpath in Italy ended up buying a €4,000 mountain bike, a €3,500 panoramic spyglass and donating €10,000 to a local church from their budget.

Law-making 1. Since its inception the EU has made some 125,000 or so decisions, laws and regulations – about 10 laws or para-laws per day for the last 50 years. In the last 20 years alone, the number of EU officials has almost trebled – from 20,000 to over 55,000, most (33,000) of whom work for the de facto EU government, the European Commission. Now, the EU generates about 12 new laws every working day. Every time an EU law is passed it becomes part of the acquis communautaire (a body of laws with which all member states must comply) and which is all but impossible to change; the acquis communautaire is generally deemed to be irreversible.

Law-making 2. The majority of EU laws emanate from 247 advisory committees and over 1,000 EU-sponsored expert groups. These committees and groups are targeted by 15,000 or so lobbyists who crawl all over the EU like a rash and seek to have laws made by what’s known in Brussels as the ‘Trojan Horse’. ‘Trojan Horse’ lobbying involves getting your own people on to the relevant committees and expert groups so that they can work from the inside, ensuring the legislative proposals suit your particular interests.

European Court of Justice. Of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), Erstwhile German President Roman Herzog observed in 2008 that the ECJ, ‘blithely ignores national law, pulls judgements out of a hat, acts as legislator, systematically ignores fundamental principles of the Western interpretation of law [and] invents legal principles serving as grounds for later judgements’. He accused the ECJ of ‘arrogance’ and of giving ‘increasingly astonishing justifications for depriving member states of their very own fundamental competences and interfering heavily in their legal systems’. Herzog went on to argue that the ECJ was not fit for purpose because it made judgements based not on EU or national legal merit or precedent, but on the political principle of ‘ever-closer union’. Bear in mind that EU law has supremacy over member nation states’ laws, the ECJ is the supreme court and there is no right of appeal against ECJ judgements.

Six Steps to Heaven. There are 6 treaties which have been designed to build one on the other towards the creation of a European superstate: the Treaty of Rome 1957; the Single European Act 1986; the Maastricht Treaty 1991/92; the Treaty of Amsterdam 1997; the Treaty of Nice 2001 and the Treaty of Lisbon (the ‘Constitutional Treaty’) 2004. The Treaty of Rome declares that the signatory states are, ‘determined to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe’ (but see the Demos paragraph above). Erstwhile German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said, ‘[the Lisbon Treaty] will lead to the creation of what the founding fathers of modern Europe dreamed of after the war, the United States of Europe’. Erstwhile German President Roman Herzog said, ‘The day of the nation state is over’. Erstwhile President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors said, ‘We’re not just here to make a single market, but a political union’.

Economics. During 2019, the Italian government must roll over €400 billion of debt, equivalent to 25% of GDP. The IMF now warns Italy risks a crisis that could ‘push global markets into uncharted territory’. Average per capita incomes among southern eurozone members are now just 75% of their northern counterparts, down from almost 90% in the early 2000s – reflecting how the euro currency has boosted competitive nations, while hammering the southern states in particular. Youth unemployment in Spain: over 30%. Youth unemployment in Italy: over 30%. Youth unemployment in Greece: over 40%. The economist Liam Halligan notes that, ‘the eurozone is an unsustainable construct – just one bad election, one geopolitical event, one sovereign downgrade, one eurozone bond crisis away from a “hell” of its own’. Another economist, Andrea Hossó notes that, ‘the next crisis will find the eurozone with deep structural problems, record indebtedness, banks still burdened with legacy bad loans, the ECB short of tools to mitigate the effect, and a political viper’s nest of clashing interests and rebelling [interior regions of the EU]’. Meanwhile, back at the ranch (the UK), we’re experiencing record high levels of employment; youth unemployment is 11% and overall unemployment is 4%; inflation is exceptionally low; GDP growth in 2019 will exceed 2018 growth; government borrowing is down to the lowest in 17 years; retail sales have just hit a 4-month high – I could go on. So much for economic Armageddon if ever the British people had been stupid enough to vote for Brexit. Oh, hang on a minute …

Thank you for reading my post above. Please comment below if you wish, one way or another. I don’t censor or edit any comments unless they’re gratuitously offensive, of which there are virtually none.

To stimulate debate, please share this post on social media using one or more of the buttons below. Tell people you share my views; or tell people I’m talking cobblers; I don’t mind either way. I just want us all to use peaceful means to effect change. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

Feel free to join the 300-odd other followers of my blog by clicking on the ‘Follow Blog via Email’ box over to the right of the page. I didn’t plan it this way, but Moraymint Chatter now gets tens of thousands of hits during the course of a year, so if you comment your views will be widely read.

See you down the pub.

32 comments

  1. What a brilliant essay – thank you for that – and what a way to make it available to people. I am convinced that you have it exactly right. But leading the horses to this will be quite a challenge – getting them to drink it in – well I sincerely hope you succeed.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Steph N · · Reply

    I was very interested in your article and agree wholeheartedly, especially that Leavers are concerned with sovereignty and UK law making etc. and Remainers are interested only in whether they will lose money which I find to be true with almost everyone I come across.

    I have been anti Common Market/EU since the UK joined and I voted against it in 1975.

    With a view to voting in the Referendum, I thought I should make sure that I was not being unduly prejudiced against the EU, so I enrolled on a six week part-time online course run by the University of Barcelona through Future Learn.

    At the end of each week of reading course materials, comments by other participants (mainly pro-EU) and reading background material, I found that I had become more anti- EU than I had been before and even more worried about the consequences of staying in the EU. Consequently, I felt justified in voting ‘Leave’ in the Referendum.

    During the last three years since the Referendum I am even more convinced that Britain should leave and be free once more. The EU is totally wrong for us. We have such a long history of freedom, law making, democratic Parliament (until the recent troubles in Parliament), it would be tragic to give it all up for ‘ever closer union’ and MEPs pensions.

    I am particularly incensed by the horrors that are to come if we remain in the EU. For example, making our armed forces subservient to the EU and ruled by an EU Defence Minister who could send our armed forces off to war against our wishes (even worse that Blair and the Iraq war). (Veterans For Britain have several videos about this on YouTube.

    They also plan an EU Finance Minister and have stated that all EU countries will have to join the EURO for this to happen.

    I cannot understand Remainers who seem to have either no knowledge of the horrors of ‘ever closer to union’ or do not mind if it happens.

    They also do not seem to notice the distress that Italy and Greece are in financially or the huge numbers of unemployed in those countries.

    I know Mrs May has been worse than useless, but the way the EU leaders have treated us has been abominable and even if I had not voted leave, by now I would have very anti-EU.

    If the Government refuses to take us out of the EU completely i.e. not a part in part out, or if they impose a second referendum with two leave choices (no deal, Mrs M’s W.A. or remain) I think we should continue to fight for our right to leave.

    I do hope the Brexit Party will get some good candidates and be a success. The Tories are a disgrace and a shambles.

    Like

  3. Michael Wood · · Reply

    I used to enjoy your comments on Telegraph articles some years ago, I suspect

    Liked by 1 person

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      Yes, I’m one and the same Michael …

      Like

  4. Warwick Woodhouse · · Reply

    Brilliant.Hope you don’t mind but I have passed this on to others including Remainers.

    D and I are contemplating the highland train journey. Can you provide me with a link?

    Yours aye >

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Have messaged you (FB Messenger and WhatsApp) …

      Like

  5. reallyoldbill · · Reply

    Another thought provoking article, Mr Mint. The single most fascinating aspect to the whole Brexit division for me is the way that, as you point out, the Leave supporters place a high value on national sovereignty and self government, while the Remain camp concentrate almost exclusively on the economic arguments, which at best are speculative as we have already seen from the extremely flawed predictions made by Project Fear about the consequences of even voting to leave much less actually doing it. They have so far turned out to be a reverse of the truth.

    The whole EU project is political, not economic, with its eventual destination a federal country with members states just component parts of the whole. There is, of course, nothing remotely wrong with that as an ambition provided, and this is the crux of the problem, it is done openly, the merits and disadvantages debated honestly, and a mandate achieved from the people of the UK. That has never been attempted much less achieved; in fact the progress of our travel towards that ultimate destination has been shrouded in stealth, deceit and obfuscation. Whenever opponents raise the question of the end destination they are met with outright denial from the political class and supporters of the Project. The obvious question then is why? If the creation of a federal European state is such a desirable objective, why do its supporters in the UK, unlike their counterparts on the continent, not openly and honestly argue for it rather than deny it is happening in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is? It can only be because they are fully aware that the majority of Britons are fiercely attached to the nation state and are acutely aware that their forefathers have expended much blood and treasure defending it over many generations. They voted to leave at the first time of asking.

    The greatest irony of the whole circus surrounding Brexit is the eagerness of the unreconciled remain lobby to accuse Leavers of dishonesty, whether with messages on a bus, alleged campaign overspending or even Russian collusion, while being in complete denial themselves, deliberately or through naivety, of the consequences of remaining members. The construction of the federal state is no secret, being openly and even enthusiastically discussed in Brussels, yet dare not speak its name in this country. The denial of reality by those same Remainers, is the greatest dishonesty of all.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      A resounding, ‘Hear! Hear!’ from me …

      Like

  6. 10navigator · · Reply

    Wizard post, as usual MM.
    How’s the candidacy coming along?
    Knock ’em dead in the polls!
    See you down the pub.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      Can’t recall; did I say elsewhere before? Nigel Farage called me at home a couple of Sundays ago. We spoke for some time about my potential candidacy. He said he liked my CV and my 200-word case for being elected. He passed my number to his colleague, Toby Vintcent, who’s been handling the candidate selection details. I didn’t get a subsequent call from Toby and am not on the list of Scotland’s candidates for the EU elections. However, Toby called me the Friday before last. He asked me if I was willing to remain a potential candidate for ‘future elections’, not least the next General Election. I said I should like to remain as a potential candidate. I asked if Brexit Party candidates would be allowed to stand anywhere in the UK, not necessarily in their own constituencies? ‘Definitely’, said Toby. I told him that I would be willing to stand in any constituency in the UK. Now we wait …

      Liked by 2 people

      1. 10navigator · · Reply

        In any meritocracy, you’d be a shoo-in.
        Buena suerte.
        Bob.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Dr A · · Reply

    Dear Moray Mint. Thank you for the kind credit that seems to have inspired your latest posting.
    Thank goodness we live in a society that can discuss and debate freely and openly.

    Regarding your post. Soo many words. Soo well presented and argued. I am in awe of the time you put in and the passion that lies behind it.

    I do disagree and feel your argument s are deeply flawed.
    Sadly I don’t have the time or written skills( dyslexia rules KO) to lay them out on this platform at the moment.
    Off to play golf!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      Yes, I like to subscribe to the Father of the House Kenneth Clarke MP’s philosophy. He’s an arch Europhile, of course. His maxim is ‘politically combative; personally amiable’. It’s always important to play the ball and not the man; to separate the issue from the person.

      Here’s a wee challenge if you want to respond to it (you don’t have to, of course). You draft 800 words or so making the case for the benefits of the UK, or any state for that matter, being a member of the EU. Don’t fight my case for NOT being a member. Make your own case for membership. Send me the draft. I’ll edit it for spelling and grammar, but will absolutely NOT change your argument. Indeed, where possible if I can amplify your argument through good use of the English language, then I’ll do that. Then, I’ll post here on my blog as a guest essay.

      Can’t say fairer than that!

      Enjoy the golf. I’m off for some messages with ‘er indoors.

      M

      Liked by 1 person

  8. A cogent analysis, as ever, Moraymint. I actually don’t need persuading, as I’ve long been on the leave side. My Conservative MP has, too, though she has to tread a careful line because the constituency voted remain.

    I suspect that MPs such as her will lose their seats at the next election, following a drubbing for the Conservatives at both the forthcoming sets of elections: council and European Parliament. It is a pity for her at the personal level, but I have come to the conclusion that a scouring of both Conservative and Labour is needed before some semblance of democracy can be restored in the UK. And a scouring may be coming.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      Yes, my own MP is a Remain voter in a (barely) Remain constituency. In Moray, 50.1% voted Remain! He’s a diligent MP but in the end his Party, the Conservative Party collectively spat in the face of democracy. Conservative MPs are, in my opinion, jointly and severally culpable for having failed spectacularly to implement the clear decision of the people of the United Kingdom 3 years ago. It’s shameful and the Conservative Party as a whole must – and will – be punished at the ballot box …

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Catherine Tompkins · · Reply

    Excellent synopsis of the whole EU debate. As a Leave voter I researched some of your ‘arguments’, hence why I voted to Leave. My worry is can we win this ‘war of words’.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      I’ve always worked on the maxim, ‘The pen is mightier than the sword’ …

      Like

  10. Boyd Stokes · · Reply

    Yet another informative and thought provoking scribing. Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      It’s my way of developing my own understanding of the issues!

      Like

  11. arfurbryant · · Reply

    Another great piece MM. (Staff College eat your heart out…)

    Lest anyone doubt your comments about Democracy and the EU:

    Structure of the EU

    The European Commission (Jean-Claude Junker is President) is not elected by the public. The Commission is the sole EU institution tabling laws for adoption by the Parliament and the Council (of the EU). The Commissioners are appointed by the European Council.

    The European Council (Donald Tusk is the President) decides on the EU’s overall direction and political priorities – but does not pass laws.

    The European Parliament (Antonio Tajani is the President) is the EU’s law-making body. It is directly elected by EU voters every 5 years. But remember it only (or votes on) laws that have been directed by the European Commission.

    The Council of the EU (Presidency is rotated) is the main decision-making body of the EU. In the Council, government ministers from each EU country meet to discuss, amend and adopt laws, and coordinate policies. The ministers have the authority to commit their governments to the actions agreed on in the meetings.

    The Council of the EU cannot be voted out by the public. Only individual Ministers can be voted out if their government is voted out at home.

    The European Commissioners cannot be voted out by the public.

    The European Council cannot be voted out by the public. Only the individual heads of states (who make up the Council) can be voted out if their respective voting public so decide.

    Only the European Parliament MEPs can be voted out by the public.

    **

    In the UK, the entire Government can be voted out by the voting public.

    **

    This video draws a comparison between the EU and the Soviet Union (without the military emphasis)…

    Best,

    Arfur

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Funny how nationalism is evil, according to Prof Grayling, yet has he accused the Scots Nats for being evil, or the RoI for (allegedly) wanting a united Ireland?

    And I fully agree with everything you have written, MM, especially the reference to the almost religious fervour of some Remainers – I too have friends like that!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      Yes, the Scottish nationalism thing is important from my perspective living in Scotland as I do. At the risk of commenting from the Department of Sweeping Statements, I find the tone of many of the utterances of the Scottish National Party to be, well, rather gratuitously nationalist …

      Like

      1. Cbowie · · Reply

        Given, 1/3 of Scottish independence voters went for brexit too it may be savvy for the brexit party to offer another indyref and present the case as a vote for true independence as opposed to a Sturgeon union swap. I think they’d turn a number voters their way taking that tack.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. moraymint · · Reply

          Interesting idea; I may follow through with that one …

          Like

  13. What we do know with 100% certainty is that if Remain had won 52/48 the EU debate would have been closed down, no concessions given to Leave (48%) and the UK Vichy Establishment & EU would have pressed the accelerator towards full union & the evisceration of European Nation States.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      So true. I’m of the opinion that had the British electorate not voted 52/48 in June 2016 we would never again have the opportunity to vote on the matter of the UK’s membership of the EU. That was our last chance. Thank goodness the result went the way it did. Had it gone the other way, the UK would have ended up going down with the EU – an inevitability …

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Arnold Slater · · Reply

    Surely the only thing that matters is sovereignty, “you elect the Government who make the laws you all live by”.Thats freedom, whether you are rich or poor you all are governed by the same laws.Trade is decided by traders not Governments,fiscal policy and taxes are set by the people you have elected to represent you,if you don’t like their policies you can vote them out at the next election.It should be simple,its politicians who try to make it complicated.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Peter Azlac · · Reply

    You need to press the Remain side to justify their economic arguments against the back ground of the massive balance of payments deficit. What sort of fool in business would pay to achieve such a loss as the UK does with its annual cost of EU membership – and this has to be funded by the taxpayer.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Old Goat · · Reply

    Excellent article, as usual.
    Although I live in France (and God knows, we have our own problems here…), I still fervently hope that Britain can, somehow, extricate itself from the Godforsaken EU institution. I see populism on the rise all around me, and remain perplexed as to why the Former UK should so resolutely fight its way in the opposite direction.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      Like you, I struggle to fathom out the behaviour of the British political class. Thank goodness for the British people …

      Like

  17. Interesting stuff as ever. Thank you.

    I noted this sentence – typo?

    “ In 1690 the English philosopher argued….”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. moraymint · · Reply

      Thanks; amended!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.

Chai et Rasade

The Vintage Wine Seller's Blog

Moraymint Chatter

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

Chauncey Tinker's Blog

Reversing "Western" decline with reason.

The Participator

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

The Worldview

Explaining our world in simple terms

The Brexit Door

Independent thinking for an Independent Britain

EU Referendum Blog

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

The Slog.

An incorrigible Cognitive Dissident

Surplus Energy Economics

How the economy REALLY works - Tim Morgan

Guido Fawkes

Parliamentary plots and conspiracy

BarristerBlogger

Matthew Scott's Legal Comment Argument and Discussion. Comment Awards 2015 Best Independent Blog

Our Finite World

Exploring how oil limits affect the economy

Independent Sovereign Democratic Britain

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

Sandy Paterson Mountaineering

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

Do the Math

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

The Archdruid Report

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

the.one&only-elspie

A father's thoughts for his children ... and other stuff

%d bloggers like this: