Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary isn't the only Cabinet Minister she's appointed which will have international implications, she has also created two new cabinet posts;
Secretary of State for Exiting the EU - David Davis
Secretary of State for International Trade - Liam Fox
The first is getting us out of the EU, the second is for getting new trade agreements for when we are out of the EU.
All these three are Brexiters, and will be responsible for the aftermath. Very clever - as May was a Remainer, she has effectively delegated responsibility for the success or failure of exiting the EU on to those who campaigned to get us into this situation in the first place!
But, as you say, we have voted to leave the EU. But what exactly does that mean? My preferred option would be the Norwegian model, where we continue to be a member of the Single Market, contribute to the EU Budget, and maintain the principle of free movement. In other words, exactly the same as now, but without the influence. (Apparently the reason Norway takes this approach is to be exempt from the Common Fisheries Policy. We could do similarly once out - great for our fishermen). In a way, I like this approach. We can be 'out', yet as far as the rest of the EU is concerned, due to lack of influence, we won't be able to make to make things difficult for the rest of them.
However, I don't know what will be negotiated or agreed, as we weren't asked in the referendum. No dount as soon as I am told, I will 'deal with it'.
I think this is something I would want to revisit when "To" in your list is replaced by 'Have". At this precise moment in time, I sense that #3, specifically with regards the EU, isn't going to be possible without compromising on #4 and #5. (I must admit I thought we already had #1 and #2!)
The petition in question was about confirming the electorate's wishes if the vote was close. Rather like one of those "are you really sure" questions you get before doing something potentially dangerous (like reformatting a hard disk).
In this case, I think there are good grounds for the government to confirm the electorate's wishes, given the closeness of the vote and the enormity of the decision.
But if I were you, I wouldn't worry, it's not going to happen.
As to "people you never voted for or have heard of in a foreign country (Belgium in this case)", I assume among these you include our MEPs? Actually, yes, I did vote in the election for these. Or the Council of Ministers, again as these are made up of ministers from each member state, again I did vote in the UK election where the current government was elected. OK the Commission is appointed, albeit with each nation's commissioner by their (elected), government, it is, I suppose, no worse than our house of Lords. Better perhaps, as the EU Parliament can vote to dismiss the commission. And I had heard of our commissioner - Lord Hill, now to be replaced by Sir Julian King.
(And I have no problems with reforming the EU so the Commission is directly elected, but strangely this is not one reform Cameron was inclined to ask for. No matter now, as soon I will have no say in the future of the EU as my country will not be part of it).
The petition was always going to be rejected, and I say that as someone who signed it. However, it will become part of the historical narrative for this referendum and the aftermath.
It will also act as a signpost for any other country who holds a similar referendum in the future; really for a referendum of such a constitutional importance, a higher threshold than a simple majority should be required for any vote-to-change to be valid.
So you have NEVER EVER voted for the leader of the UK.
In theory correct, in practice that's not how it works. To give a current example, I probably won't be voting Labour at the next election, not because I don't want my local Labour MP re-elected (as actually I quite like her), but because I don't want Corbyn as PM.
So who the leader of a party is does affect how you vote in elections, even if you're not actually directly voting for that leader as PM.
Then shouldn't we stay and try and reform it? I have no problem with giving the European Parliament more power. I also don't have a problem with electing our commissioners. Interestingly, neither of these reforms were proposed by Cameron.
However, I think neither of these would have been acceptable to those in the 'leave' camp. In the end, any 'lack' of democracy wasn't the issue. They just wanted 'out'.
From now on I can never again consider a British subject as an intelligent person. Not after what they have done to themselves.
Please, there were 48% of us who did vote to remain in the EU. Indeed, live in one of the few English councils where the 'Remain' votes were in the majority (Wirral). Also don't forget London, Scotland and Northern Ireland either, where the majority were for 'Remain'.
Also the young generally voted 'Remain' rather than 'Leave'. (I should add that I am in an age range where, as a 'Remain' voter, I was in a minority!)
We have been thinking of moving up there for some time (we have quite a few Scottish friends). This may accelerate the process.
And being a Java Developer, there may be a number of opportunities opening up, with possible independence in addition to tech companies moving up there!
It won't be Juncker (EU Commisssion) having the main say in all this, it will be Merkel and the other national leaders (i.e. EU Council of Ministers), and she has already said that there is 'no need to be nasty'.
Then again, I think the process (and negotiated end result, if any) will be painful enough for the UK without the need for the rest of the EU to be nasty!
Agreed, it's not going to change anything, and I say that as someone who signed it. However it will get debated, and it will become part of the historical narrative of this episode.
We don't know how it's going to pan out over the coming years (although I fear it will be 'not well'), so a record of views will be useful. At the very least, there will be good lessons to learn for any other nation deciding to have a similar vote, e.g. ensure a super majority for it to be 'won'.
I don't think the EU will be punitive, as I don't think they will need to be. The UK really isn't ready to negotiate an exit (we only have between a dozen and twenty experienced trade negotiators, according to a former top official at the Foreign Office. See EU referendum: Is Britain ready for Brexit?.)
And we won't just be having to negotiate trade deals with the EU, we will now have to negotiate trade deals with non-EU countries, where trade deals were previously with the EU.
I think as things progress, there will be a lot of "regrexit" as the true implications sink in. And as for other countries in the EU, I think that watching the struggle the UK will have on leaving will "concentrate minds" wonderfully!
Please remember we're not all the same in the UK. Even in this referendum, the percentages were 52% to 48% in favour of leaving. As one of the 48% (in favour of remaining), I can say that I regret our leaving, and I regret our obstructive behaviour in the past.
My hope is that you accept Scotland when it decides to leave the UK and remain in the EU. (Incidentally, I'm English).
Although English, I always thought the Scottish Independence referendum was held too early. It was clear that there would be an EU referendum at some time, and that after this would be the correct time for any Scottish Independence referendum.
That said, if another Scottish Independence referendum is held, I think the EU will be more receptive this time to accepting an independent Scotland.
The motion faces an uphill battle to win backing from the various political blocks in European Parliament. Even if it did get enough support to pass, it would be a non-binding resolution as the Parliament lacks the authority to propose legislation.
I'm sure 'daft' motions get proposed in other legislatures. They certainly do in the UK parliament. What they don't do is automatically become law.
Also from the article;
Patrick Schwarzkopf, managing director of the VDMA's robotic and automation department, said: "That we would create a legal framework with electronic persons - that's something that could happen in 50 years but not in 10 years."
"We think it would be very bureaucratic and would stunt the development of robotics," he told reporters at the Automatica robotics trade fair in Munich, while acknowledging that a legal framework for self-driving cars would be needed soon.
I think you're misunderstanding the role of the EU. To put it in a US perspective, one of its roles is to act as a regulator to ensure free trade within the EU (between the various EU member states) and between the EU and non-EU states. The US equivalent would be the US Federal Trade Commission and the various laws covering interstate commerce. I am not a US citizen, but I believe these still exist!
Maybe it would help to read the actual communication rather than the spin placed on it. My reading is that it is about giving the consumer choice, specifically to allow them to use their National ID card if they so wish. It is not about making this mandatory. The consumer could still choose to use other credentials.
There was nothing in the EU Commission communication about making it mandatory (for the consumer). That was the spin put on by the Softpedia article. The Commission proposal was about consumer choice as to the credentials they use, including National ID Cards.
The only part can could be construed as 'mandatory' was the proposal to 'encourage' online platforms to accept these other forms of eID as valid.
Any British citizens that are going to vote Remain (like me) have probably read the document!
The relevant section is (with my emphasis):
As a remedy, in order to keep identification simple and secure, consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves. In particular, online platforms should accept credentials issued or recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards.
This was even quoted in the Softpedia article, although somehow spun to mean the proposal was about "forcing EU citizens to use their real identities" rather than (as the article said) about giving them choice. The only mandating being proposed here is on the online platforms themselves.
As to the part about online reviews, although following on from the above, seems to be a separate issue being discussed.
Greater transparency is also needed for users to understand how the information presented to them is filtered, shaped or personalised, especially when this information forms the basis of purchasing decisions or influences their participation in civic or democratic life. If consumers are properly informed of the nature of the products that they view or consume online, this assists the efficient functioning of markets and consumer welfare.
Online ratings and reviews of goods and services are helpful and empowering to consumers, but they need to be trustworthy and free from any bias or manipulation. A prominent example is fake reviews, where loss of trust can undermine the business model of the platform itself, but also lead to a wider loss of trust, as expressed in many responses to the public consultation.
Both the above quotes are from a section subtitles "Fostering trust, transparency and ensuring fairness - Informing and empowering citizens and consumers".
As to what the commission proposes, it states (with emphasis from document):
In order to empower consumers and to safeguard principles of competition, consumer
protection and data protection, the Commission will further promote interoperability
actions, including through issuing principles and guidance on eID interoperability at
the latest by 2017. The aim will be to encourage online platforms to recognise other
eID means — in particular those notified under the eIDAS Regulation 39 — that offer the
same reassurance as their own.
In the context of the continued dialogue with all stakeholders, the Commission encourages
industry to step up voluntary efforts, which the Commission will undertake to assist in
framing, to prevent trust-diminishing practices, in particular — but not limited — to tackle
fake or misleading online reviews.
The problem here is not the EU communication or proposal, it is the reporting spin being given to it, as in the Softpedia article.
Slashdot Mirror
Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary isn't the only Cabinet Minister she's appointed which will have international implications, she has also created two new cabinet posts;
Secretary of State for Exiting the EU - David Davis
Secretary of State for International Trade - Liam Fox
The first is getting us out of the EU, the second is for getting new trade agreements for when we are out of the EU.
All these three are Brexiters, and will be responsible for the aftermath. Very clever - as May was a Remainer, she has effectively delegated responsibility for the success or failure of exiting the EU on to those who campaigned to get us into this situation in the first place!
Parliamentary democracy.
We elect parliamentarians, who's job it is to took at the issues and make decisions. They've managed for every other major issue we've faced so far, even taking us into war. For an interesting take on this by Professor Richard Dawkins, see Richard Dawkins: Ignoramuses should have no say on our EU membership—and that includes me
But, as you say, we have voted to leave the EU. But what exactly does that mean? My preferred option would be the Norwegian model, where we continue to be a member of the Single Market, contribute to the EU Budget, and maintain the principle of free movement. In other words, exactly the same as now, but without the influence. (Apparently the reason Norway takes this approach is to be exempt from the Common Fisheries Policy. We could do similarly once out - great for our fishermen). In a way, I like this approach. We can be 'out', yet as far as the rest of the EU is concerned, due to lack of influence, we won't be able to make to make things difficult for the rest of them.
However, I don't know what will be negotiated or agreed, as we weren't asked in the referendum. No dount as soon as I am told, I will 'deal with it'.
I think this is something I would want to revisit when "To" in your list is replaced by 'Have". At this precise moment in time, I sense that #3, specifically with regards the EU, isn't going to be possible without compromising on #4 and #5. (I must admit I thought we already had #1 and #2!)
The petition in question was about confirming the electorate's wishes if the vote was close. Rather like one of those "are you really sure" questions you get before doing something potentially dangerous (like reformatting a hard disk).
In this case, I think there are good grounds for the government to confirm the electorate's wishes, given the closeness of the vote and the enormity of the decision.
But if I were you, I wouldn't worry, it's not going to happen.
As to "people you never voted for or have heard of in a foreign country (Belgium in this case)", I assume among these you include our MEPs? Actually, yes, I did vote in the election for these. Or the Council of Ministers, again as these are made up of ministers from each member state, again I did vote in the UK election where the current government was elected. OK the Commission is appointed, albeit with each nation's commissioner by their (elected), government, it is, I suppose, no worse than our house of Lords. Better perhaps, as the EU Parliament can vote to dismiss the commission. And I had heard of our commissioner - Lord Hill, now to be replaced by Sir Julian King.
(And I have no problems with reforming the EU so the Commission is directly elected, but strangely this is not one reform Cameron was inclined to ask for. No matter now, as soon I will have no say in the future of the EU as my country will not be part of it).
The referendum was supposedly advisory, not binding.
This is the figure after they got rid of the dubious signatories.
The petition was always going to be rejected, and I say that as someone who signed it. However, it will become part of the historical narrative for this referendum and the aftermath.
It will also act as a signpost for any other country who holds a similar referendum in the future; really for a referendum of such a constitutional importance, a higher threshold than a simple majority should be required for any vote-to-change to be valid.
So you have NEVER EVER voted for the leader of the UK.
In theory correct, in practice that's not how it works. To give a current example, I probably won't be voting Labour at the next election, not because I don't want my local Labour MP re-elected (as actually I quite like her), but because I don't want Corbyn as PM.
So who the leader of a party is does affect how you vote in elections, even if you're not actually directly voting for that leader as PM.
... But other than that, everyone wins.
Not the young, who apparently quite like the ability to move, study, live and work freely throughout the EU.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity." (Yeats).
Then shouldn't we stay and try and reform it? I have no problem with giving the European Parliament more power. I also don't have a problem with electing our commissioners. Interestingly, neither of these reforms were proposed by Cameron.
However, I think neither of these would have been acceptable to those in the 'leave' camp. In the end, any 'lack' of democracy wasn't the issue. They just wanted 'out'.
From now on I can never again consider a British subject as an intelligent person. Not after what they have done to themselves.
Please, there were 48% of us who did vote to remain in the EU. Indeed, live in one of the few English councils where the 'Remain' votes were in the majority (Wirral). Also don't forget London, Scotland and Northern Ireland either, where the majority were for 'Remain'.
Also the young generally voted 'Remain' rather than 'Leave'. (I should add that I am in an age range where, as a 'Remain' voter, I was in a minority!)
We have been thinking of moving up there for some time (we have quite a few Scottish friends). This may accelerate the process.
And being a Java Developer, there may be a number of opportunities opening up, with possible independence in addition to tech companies moving up there!
It won't be Juncker (EU Commisssion) having the main say in all this, it will be Merkel and the other national leaders (i.e. EU Council of Ministers), and she has already said that there is 'no need to be nasty'.
Then again, I think the process (and negotiated end result, if any) will be painful enough for the UK without the need for the rest of the EU to be nasty!
Agreed, it's not going to change anything, and I say that as someone who signed it. However it will get debated, and it will become part of the historical narrative of this episode.
We don't know how it's going to pan out over the coming years (although I fear it will be 'not well'), so a record of views will be useful. At the very least, there will be good lessons to learn for any other nation deciding to have a similar vote, e.g. ensure a super majority for it to be 'won'.
I don't think the EU will be punitive, as I don't think they will need to be. The UK really isn't ready to negotiate an exit (we only have between a dozen and twenty experienced trade negotiators, according to a former top official at the Foreign Office. See EU referendum: Is Britain ready for Brexit?.)
And we won't just be having to negotiate trade deals with the EU, we will now have to negotiate trade deals with non-EU countries, where trade deals were previously with the EU.
I think as things progress, there will be a lot of "regrexit" as the true implications sink in. And as for other countries in the EU, I think that watching the struggle the UK will have on leaving will "concentrate minds" wonderfully!
Not all of us. My mortgage is paid off. Yet I voted remain. (Part of the 44%).
Me too!
It seems the young (of which I am not one!) voted by about 75% to 25% to remain in the EU.
Please remember we're not all the same in the UK. Even in this referendum, the percentages were 52% to 48% in favour of leaving. As one of the 48% (in favour of remaining), I can say that I regret our leaving, and I regret our obstructive behaviour in the past.
My hope is that you accept Scotland when it decides to leave the UK and remain in the EU. (Incidentally, I'm English).
Although English, I always thought the Scottish Independence referendum was held too early. It was clear that there would be an EU referendum at some time, and that after this would be the correct time for any Scottish Independence referendum.
That said, if another Scottish Independence referendum is held, I think the EU will be more receptive this time to accepting an independent Scotland.
The motion faces an uphill battle to win backing from the various political blocks in European Parliament. Even if it did get enough support to pass, it would be a non-binding resolution as the Parliament lacks the authority to propose legislation.
I'm sure 'daft' motions get proposed in other legislatures. They certainly do in the UK parliament. What they don't do is automatically become law.
Also from the article;
Patrick Schwarzkopf, managing director of the VDMA's robotic and automation department, said: "That we would create a legal framework with electronic persons - that's something that could happen in 50 years but not in 10 years."
"We think it would be very bureaucratic and would stunt the development of robotics," he told reporters at the Automatica robotics trade fair in Munich, while acknowledging that a legal framework for self-driving cars would be needed soon.
So maybe premature, rather than completely daft.
I think you're misunderstanding the role of the EU. To put it in a US perspective, one of its roles is to act as a regulator to ensure free trade within the EU (between the various EU member states) and between the EU and non-EU states. The US equivalent would be the US Federal Trade Commission and the various laws covering interstate commerce. I am not a US citizen, but I believe these still exist!
Maybe it would help to read the actual communication rather than the spin placed on it. My reading is that it is about giving the consumer choice, specifically to allow them to use their National ID card if they so wish. It is not about making this mandatory. The consumer could still choose to use other credentials.
There was nothing in the EU Commission communication about making it mandatory (for the consumer). That was the spin put on by the Softpedia article. The Commission proposal was about consumer choice as to the credentials they use, including National ID Cards.
The only part can could be construed as 'mandatory' was the proposal to 'encourage' online platforms to accept these other forms of eID as valid.
The relevant section is (with my emphasis):
As a remedy, in order to keep identification simple and secure, consumers should be able to choose the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves. In particular, online platforms should accept credentials issued or recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards.
This was even quoted in the Softpedia article, although somehow spun to mean the proposal was about "forcing EU citizens to use their real identities" rather than (as the article said) about giving them choice. The only mandating being proposed here is on the online platforms themselves.
As to the part about online reviews, although following on from the above, seems to be a separate issue being discussed.
Greater transparency is also needed for users to understand how the information presented to them is filtered, shaped or personalised, especially when this information forms the basis of purchasing decisions or influences their participation in civic or democratic life. If consumers are properly informed of the nature of the products that they view or consume online, this assists the efficient functioning of markets and consumer welfare.
Online ratings and reviews of goods and services are helpful and empowering to consumers, but they need to be trustworthy and free from any bias or manipulation. A prominent example is fake reviews, where loss of trust can undermine the business model of the platform itself, but also lead to a wider loss of trust, as expressed in many responses to the public consultation.
Both the above quotes are from a section subtitles "Fostering trust, transparency and ensuring fairness - Informing and empowering citizens and consumers".
As to what the commission proposes, it states (with emphasis from document):
In order to empower consumers and to safeguard principles of competition, consumer protection and data protection, the Commission will further promote interoperability actions, including through issuing principles and guidance on eID interoperability at the latest by 2017. The aim will be to encourage online platforms to recognise other eID means — in particular those notified under the eIDAS Regulation 39 — that offer the same reassurance as their own.
In the context of the continued dialogue with all stakeholders, the Commission encourages industry to step up voluntary efforts, which the Commission will undertake to assist in framing, to prevent trust-diminishing practices, in particular — but not limited — to tackle fake or misleading online reviews.
The problem here is not the EU communication or proposal, it is the reporting spin being given to it, as in the Softpedia article.