How should Canada respond to a No-deal Brexit?
- Thread starter White_Unifier
- Start date
So just to be sure, you'd be fine with NAFTA being used as an excuse to create a superstate between Canada, the US and Mexico with an un-elected body based outside of Canada making rules and laws for Canada and Canadians. That about sum it up Spanky?
Marmite and Lyle's Golden Syrup. Why? Would you rather that government bureaucrats decide through tariffs and quotas or that consumers decide with their own money? Given how high taxes are already, do you really think we should raise taxes on consumers even more (since that's essentially what tariffs amount to)?
I think Canada hadn't surrendered enough sovereignty in the previous Nafta what with its protections for its dairy and cultural industries, but has now sacrificed too much sovereignty in the new USMCA with the clause requirinig Canada to get the other's consent to sign any trade agreement with a 'non-market economy'? So who's the non-market economy now?
never should Canada has signed onto a deal that would prevent it from unilaterally dropping tariffs and quotas against any state as it sees fit to do so.
Canada should give the US the proverbial finger and just adopt unilateral global free trade in tariffs and quotas and then negotiate agreements from there with an understanding that we will not sign any agreement that limits our freedom to practice unilateral global free trade in tariffs and quotas. Any negotiation, whether pertaining to packaging, labelling, phytosanitary rules, etc., could not infringe on Canada's freedom to practice unilateral free trade in tariffs and quotas since that would be tantamount to forcing Canada to impose taxes on its consumers.
Marmite is shite and we have delicious maple syrup.
But all kidding aside, Canada shouldn't respond at all. Just trade with Britain like we would anyone else ffs. I don't even see why this should be an issue.
Quite frankly, given the dictatorial stance of the EU, I'm beginning to question if Canada should be trading with them. The EU is not the evolution of the EEC, it's the de-evolution of the EEC.
It's all well and good to yammer on about global free trade and shit but that ain't gonna happen until Canada scraps its supply management system, period. There are a lot of countries out there that are rather wary about entering a free-trade agreement with us while supply management is still a thing here. Not only that but the system is making an ever dwindling number of wealthy farmers even wealthier.
By comparison New Zealand scrapped their supply management system 20 or so years ago. As a result, their dairy farms became more profitable and efficient as well as making tiny NZ one of the top exporters of milk and milk products.
You made me laugh when you pondered whether Britain would go all protectionist after Brexit while Canada clearly engages in protectionism with some of its industries. Look at our media. We require a certain percentage of Canadian content in order for a channel to operate in Canada so as to "protect our culture." But wait, Groper says in fact that Canada has no common culture so what Canadian culture does he think he's still protecting by keeping that law active?
I never said Canada wasn't too protectionist. In fact, Canada is far too protectionist. That alone makes me think that a Bernier majority might be a good thing for Canadian consumers. He's about the most free-trading party leader around right now at least as far as the major parties go. I suppose there's the libertarian party, but they're far more fringe too.
You mean like the United Nations Security Council, where Canada doesn't even have permanent representation?
By the way, what part of the EU is "unelected?" The European Parliament is directly elected. The Council is the heads of state or government of the member states, all more or less democratically elected (except for the monarchs, but I don't think any of them are actually on the Council). The European Commission is appointed by the Council, subject to approval by the Parliament. Sounds about like the three branches of the U.S.: elected President, elected Congress, and Supreme Court appointed by the President with the approval of the Senate. (To say nothing of the flocks of Cabinet Departments and administrative agencies also headed by people with Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation.)
Last edited:
Um, you haven't been paying attention if you think I'm pro-UN in any way, shape for form.
You're correct. I should have chosen my words better, like un-democratic, un-accountable. As for Britain, what's the point in electing an official to a superstate you didn't want to be part of in the first place and were dragged into without so much as a "boo"? The fact the EU accepted Britain against the will of a solid majority of Brits and now wants to punish them because after 40+ years the British people finally got the referendum they were promised in 1972, says a LOT about how decrepit the EU is. I love their "deal" for a hard Brexit. "Pay us $80 billion a year to NOT have access to the EEA." Yeah, and the EU can go f*ck their hats as well.
February 1, 2019
Behind Closed Doors – the EU has abolished the little democratic oversight it had
Radomir Tylecote
BrexitCentral
Dr Radomir Tylecote is Director of the European Foundation and Senior Research Analyst for the IEA’s Trade and International Competition Unit.
It is now well known that, if resurrected, the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement would keep the UK under EU rules and regulations, but without representation in the system that makes them, through a potentially immovable backstop.
What is less understood is that, even since the referendum in 2016, this EU system has moved on. As the recent European Foundation paper Behind Closed Doors shows, EU decision-making, never democratic by any standards, has in the last decade become even less accountable and transparent. A system that has always concentrated power in the hands of small “law-making groups” – the Commission and Council in particular – has become even less democratic, making the rationale behind its laws more opaque yet.
To grasp how the EU has functioned until recently though, it is worth briefly outlining what its structure was intended to be, through comparison with the UK Parliament.
In the UK, Parliament is the law-making body. In the Commons, all members are elected; the other house, though not directly elected, acts in an advisory capacity, and cannot veto laws. All proceedings are televised, every word transcribed. The Government is drawn from Parliament, with its ministers answerable to it, and they must appear before it frequently. This Government can be removed at set intervals, along with every other member of the Commons.
The EU, meanwhile, is a system of law-making groups, the most important being the Commission – a small, unelected gathering, where note-taking is banned and whose chamber none may enter without the Commissioners’ permission. Only the Commission may propose laws. These progress to the Council, which passes legislation through a qualified majority vote (QMV), following the abolition of the national veto. The Council is attended by Coreper (the Committee of Permanent Representatives, i.e. Member States’ ambassadors), which tries to reach agreement on Commission proposals before they get to the Council. How Coreper reaches agreement is also hidden, but 70-90% of decisions are now made this way, then adopted by the Council without further discussion. The European Parliament meanwhile cannot propose law, often is not consulted, and typically can be ignored.
While the Commission has always been an obstacle to transparent decision-making, after it initiates proposals the Parliament and Council are supposed to be able to amend and occasionally block them. Our research suggests that, as the Commission takes greater control of the EU system, even this little capacity is being seriously undermined.
At the heart of this is the growing use of “Trilogues”, small and little-known negotiating groups that operate on behalf of the Commission and Coreper. Designed to be subject to even less oversight, they are “a legislative body in [their] own right” and “possibly the most powerful, [governing] the overwhelming majority of legislative procedures”.
These Trilogues include a small number of Commission representatives, MEPs, and civil servants. They aim to secure legislative agreement before any transparent process occurs, giving the Commission even greater control while preventing the public knowing why laws are being made. Once Trilogues agree a text, neither the Parliament nor Council are able to change it, so with national scrutiny rendered “difficult, if not impossible”, Member States’ ministers now have little involvement.
Moreover, in both the European Parliament and the Council, the UK is now the country most often on the losing side, with Germany and an entrenched bloc of its Eurozone voting allies the most frequent winner. Even before it loses all representation in the EU institutions, the UK is already consistently outvoted on issues of profound national interest, like financial regulation, and has been unable to achieve any meaningful reform to this system.
These developments are disturbing indeed, as the continent that gave the world democracy and equality before the law is increasingly governed away from public view. Remaining under this system’s rules – either without representation, as the Withdrawal Agreement proposes, or via a second referendum – would severely undermine our democracy.
https://brexitcentral.com/behind-closed-doors-eu-abolished-little-democratic-oversight/
Last edited:
When I read that the MEP were unable to enact laws, suggest changes etc., I was gob-smacked! Why would any country belong to an organization in which it had absolutely no say in what rules, regulations and/or laws were enacted? Tech's comparison to Canada's current situation with the UN is another perfect example - no representation (although my strong belief is that we shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the UN - period!). It's the most corrupt organization on the planet with the EU right there with them!
Oh that's right. I forgot you're one of those sub-intellectual cretins who thinks Brexit is all about racism.