Miss Cyclefree, I entirely agree. But that's what happens when idiots start describing plaintiffs as 'victims', which necessarily means they view the accused as guilty before any pesky conviction is required.
.... You know miles more about this than me, obviously. But it reminds of government idiocy over tech laws. I shouldn't know more about the basics than those who are professionally charged with legislating and regulating these areas.
*sighs*
Mr. P, the rocks are coming about because the likes of Grieve and Corbyn are grabbing at the wheel.
I have to go out to dinner in Canary Wharf, for god's sake. So very quickly.
These disclosure rules came about as a result of the Irish miscarriage of justice cases decades ago when the police failed to disclose highly relevant evidence to the defence. There was a Runciman Commission which recommended changes which were eventually enacted.
That is really quite long enough for the legal/justice establishment to understand what the rules are and learn how to implement them. This stuff was new when I started my career nearly 4 decades ago.
It's gone wrong because it's not seen as important, because there are second or third rate people in the key state agencies, because legal aid has been slashed so they are not effectively challenged by the defence and for all sorts of other reasons as well.
The law matters. The rule of law matters. An effective judicial and criminal system matters.
We are not getting it and we will - all - as a society be the poorer for it.
I think we are now heading for a new general election or a 2nd referendum, or both (or a general election which is a proxy for a new plebiscite). I don't see how the Tories can avoid all the rocks and navigate to a safe harbour.
All the rocks the Brexiteers said were "Project Fear"
Funny that...
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
If you believe as I do that the EU is fundamentally undemocratic and has neither the desire nor the will to reform, that means either leaving at any cost, or admitting that democracy is dead as some doo doo.
Either way, arguing b) is unlikely to win many converts to your side.
It is possible in principle to be sovereign AND intertwined. Also arguing for leaving at any cost may not win many converts to your side, given the closeness of the referendum result. Which is probably why the Leave campaign was so ANXIOUS to assert there was no cost to Brexit.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
It is possible in principle to be sovereign AND intertwined. Also arguing for leaving at any cost may not win many converts to your side, given the closeness of the referendum result. Which is probably why the Leave campaign was so ANXIOUS to assert there was no cost to Brexit.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
In years to come, few will remember voting for it
To be fair, that will probably be because a lot of them will have died off.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Even fewer will remember voting to be subsumed into a European super-state.....
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
@SeanT - sorry but you’re wrong. How is it the worst of all possible worlds to take back control over our borders while retaining a modicum of integration with our largest market? If we stay in the Single Market, freedom of movement continues. That is not acceptable, and is certainly against the spirit of the referendum result.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
How do I fire the Latvian commissioner? Or Herr Selmayr?
Hope you have a nice bourgeois capitalist pigdog elitist dinner, Miss Cyclefree
Edited extra bit: Mr. 43, hahahahaha!
You sound like Chris Huhne arguing that joining the single currency would give us more power.
Not really. It's the principle behind any pooled sovereignty. You give up some direct control for a greater good that you have some influence over. The same principle applies to Scotland in the United Kingdom. In both cases, some people will say the greater isn't good enough and there is insufficient influence. Nevertheless the same principle applies.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
Chris Patten -
There has been too much focus on sovereignty in the UK debate: "sovereignty, in the sense of unfettered freedom of action, is a nonsense. A man, naked, hungry and alone in the middle of the Sahara desert is free in the sense that no-one can tell him what to do. He is sovereign, then. But he is also doomed. It is often preferable to accept constraints on freedom of action in order to achieve some other benefit." As Mrs.Thatcher said in 1975: "Almost every major nation has been obliged by the pressures of the post-war world to pool significant areas of sovereignty so as to create more effective political units."
The chattering classes will gleefully rejoice. The electorate's decision will be treated with contempt. And the poisonous political atmosphere will become much worse.
Such a situation would be similar to Lisbon, and the reneging of manifesto pledges for a referendum. Only much more severe.
I fear a terrible mistake is about to made with profound consequences for the health of our body politic. Perhaps I'm wrong. But my suggestion of how we might leave in name only, or have a terrible deal deliberately negotiated to facilitate a second referendum, is looking reasonably prescient.
Th 'electorate's decision' was a sort of 'suppose on balance we should Leave assuming there won't be any problems and we get the £350million/week'.
I suspect it was based on stronger views, information, feelings and emotions than that.
I was referring to the overall electorate which split very evenly.
So was I!
I suppose that that makes sense to you. The electorate decided 52:48 so rather half-heartedly, wholeheartedly would be something like 70:30. Of course I accept that individuals had strong views but the overall electorate - nah.
"One English winemaker is already planning for the Brexit celebrations and/or sorrows-drownings, by bottling up its rough approximation of champagne in pint bottles. Because Winston Churchill said so."
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
Chris Patten -
There has been too much focus on sovereignty in the UK debate: "sovereignty, in the sense of unfettered freedom of action, is a nonsense. A man, naked, hungry and alone in the middle of the Sahara desert is free in the sense that no-one can tell him what to do. He is sovereign, then. But he is also doomed. It is often preferable to accept constraints on freedom of action in order to achieve some other benefit." As Mrs.Thatcher said in 1975: "Almost every major nation has been obliged by the pressures of the post-war world to pool significant areas of sovereignty so as to create more effective political units."
And those who would give up liberty to purchase safety deserve neither. I don't object to pooling sovereignty in principle, but I do think the institutions in which we participate should have adequate democratic checks and balances - the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU is already a yawning chasm, and I fear if we do not get out soon it will be an abyss from which we can never return.
Miss Cyclefree, I entirely agree. But that's what happens when idiots start describing plaintiffs as 'victims', which necessarily means they view the accused as guilty before any pesky conviction is required....
That attitude (which is far from universal) merely replaces a previous set of prejudices which tended in the opposite direction, Mr.D. One of the attributes of an effective criminal justice system is that its procedures should overcome any individual or collective biases.
"One English winemaker is already planning for the Brexit celebrations and/or sorrows-drownings, by bottling up its rough approximation of champagne in pint bottles. Because Winston Churchill said so."
Miss Cyclefree, I entirely agree. But that's what happens when idiots start describing plaintiffs as 'victims', which necessarily means they view the accused as guilty before any pesky conviction is required....
That attitude (which is far from universal) merely replaces a previous set of prejudices which tended in the opposite direction, Mr.D. One of the attributes of an effective criminal justice system is that its procedures should overcome any individual or collective biases.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
I think we are now heading for a new general election or a 2nd referendum, or both (or a general election which is a proxy for a new plebiscite). I don't see how the Tories can avoid all the rocks and navigate to a safe harbour.
All the rocks the Brexiteers said were "Project Fear"
Funny that...
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
If you believe as I do that the EU is fundamentally undemocratic and has neither the desire nor the will to reform, that means either leaving at any cost, or admitting that democracy is dead as some doo doo.
Either way, arguing b) is unlikely to win many converts to your side.
The Good Friday Agreement, which is what is causing all the trouble, has nothing to do with the EU - it was signed by the UK and Ireland governments of their own free will. Its only because of the additional sovereignty being part of the EU gives Ireland, that they can enforce the GFA and tell the UK government where to go.
It's just as well for them that they didn't tell us where to go when they wanted us to prop up their banks.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
How do I fire the Latvian commissioner? Or Herr Selmayr?
Selmayr is a Civil Servant, not a politician.
How do I fire the Speaker? or the CEO of the NHS, or any of the HoL? let alone the Head of State.
The UK govt could choose to have a customs border along the Irish Sea if they still want GB to remain outside the CU, but they would lose the support of the DUP if they pursued this option.
Late to the party, but you're suggesting that the United Kingdom should be broken up. An internal border within a nation state? End of that nation state as presently constituted.
Not unprecedented. Ancien regime France had customs barriers all over the place. Contemporary Malaysia has immigration control between Malaya and Sarawak / Sabah.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
Chris Patten -
There has been too much focus on sovereignty in the UK debate: "sovereignty, in the sense of unfettered freedom of action, is a nonsense. A man, naked, hungry and alone in the middle of the Sahara desert is free in the sense that no-one can tell him what to do. He is sovereign, then. But he is also doomed. It is often preferable to accept constraints on freedom of action in order to achieve some other benefit." As Mrs.Thatcher said in 1975: "Almost every major nation has been obliged by the pressures of the post-war world to pool significant areas of sovereignty so as to create more effective political units."
And those who would give up liberty to purchase safety deserve neither. I don't object to pooling sovereignty in principle, but I do think the institutions in which we participate should have adequate democratic checks and balances - the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU is already a yawning chasm, and I fear if we do not get out soon it will be an abyss from which we can never return.
It's a false choice to say that you can either starve in the desert, or you can accept the constraints on independence that EU membership entails. There is a wide range of options in between.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
I think the problem is that the parties in the European Parliament are ersatz. There’s no sense in which a European demos support for the EPP, yet apparently it’s their turn to nominate the candidate to replace Juncker.
I think Commission Prezs should be approved by a 60% majority of the European Parliament. We want grey consensus builders not wedge issue politicos.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Blame Cameron for consigning the Conservatives to irrelevance on the European stage.
I think we are now heading for a new general election or a 2nd referendum, or both (or a general election which is a proxy for a new plebiscite). I don't see how the Tories can avoid all the rocks and navigate to a safe harbour.
All the rocks the Brexiteers said were "Project Fear"
Funny that...
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
If you believe as I do that the EU is fundamentally undemocratic and has neither the desire nor the will to reform, that means either leaving at any cost, or admitting that democracy is dead as some doo doo.
Either way, arguing b) is unlikely to win many converts to your side.
The Good Friday Agreement, which is what is causing all the trouble, has nothing to do with the EU - it was signed by the UK and Ireland governments of their own free will. Its only because of the additional sovereignty being part of the EU gives Ireland, that they can enforce the GFA and tell the UK government where to go.
It's just as well for them that they didn't tell us where to go when they wanted us to prop up their banks.
That was mainly a bail out of our banks so had a significant dose of self-interest.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
No - they could vote for a Labour or Conservative candidate depending on their right/left preference
There is no right of centre party in the UK that is a member of one of the blocs that play swapsie with the EU leadership
The UK govt could choose to have a customs border along the Irish Sea if they still want GB to remain outside the CU, but they would lose the support of the DUP if they pursued this option.
Late to the party, but you're suggesting that the United Kingdom should be broken up. An internal border within a nation state? End of that nation state as presently constituted.
I put it forward as a theoretical option. However, would it not be better than the unnatural border created in 1922, which divides the 9 counties of the Irish province of Ulster, and is an internal border within a nation state?
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Blame Cameron for consigning the Conservatives to irrelevance on the European stage.
The EPP is a Federalist Party. The Conservatives are not.
The UK govt could choose to have a customs border along the Irish Sea if they still want GB to remain outside the CU, but they would lose the support of the DUP if they pursued this option.
Late to the party, but you're suggesting that the United Kingdom should be broken up. An internal border within a nation state? End of that nation state as presently constituted.
I put it forward as a theoretical option. However, would it not be better than the unnatural border created in 1922, which divides the 9 counties of the Irish province of Ulster, and is an internal border within a nation state?
Defining whether a border is ‘natural’ or not is hardly an objective exercise. As to your last clause, it is factually wrong. There never has been a nation state encompassing the island of Ireland.
The UK govt could choose to have a customs border along the Irish Sea if they still want GB to remain outside the CU, but they would lose the support of the DUP if they pursued this option.
Late to the party, but you're suggesting that the United Kingdom should be broken up. An internal border within a nation state? End of that nation state as presently constituted.
I put it forward as a theoretical option. However, would it not be better than the unnatural border created in 1922, which divides the 9 counties of the Irish province of Ulster, and is an internal border within a nation state?
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK govt could choose to have a customs border along the Irish Sea if they still want GB to remain outside the CU, but they would lose the support of the DUP if they pursued this option.
Late to the party, but you're suggesting that the United Kingdom should be broken up. An internal border within a nation state? End of that nation state as presently constituted.
Not unprecedented. Ancien regime France had customs barriers all over the place. Contemporary Malaysia has immigration control between Malaya and Sarawak / Sabah.
Presumably by their own choice according to their constitution at the time. So if Louis xiv decided he wanted a customs border between Brittany and Normandy that was a French state decision not one imposed from without. How about we demand Corsica be part of the U.K. single market in a swap? Sounds fair.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK set up, the EU set up or both?
The current EU set up.
The UK has a parliamentary democracy - not directly comparable to a presidential one
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
Agree. The President of the Council (Tusk) is basically ceremonial. The President of the ECB (Draghi) is equivalent to our Bank of England Governor. The President of Parliament (Tajani) is equivalent to our Speaker, and is elected by the EU Parliament.
It’s only the EU Commission Pres (Juncker) that holds real power. Traditionally appointed via horse trading heads of government, he or she is now nominated by the largest party “grouping” in parliament. As I said upthread, it’s not ideal - but it’s not the unelected dictatorship of Brexiter fantasy either.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
How do I fire the Latvian commissioner? Or Herr Selmayr?
Re the Latvian commissionar: I can't "fire" the MP in a neighbouring constituency either.
The issue, to my mind, with EU democracy is that it is another level of indirectness.
I elect my MP.
My MP chooses the PM.
The PM chooses the Cabinet.
(Obviously, at any stage I can miss out, if I vote for a loser either in my constituency, or an MP of a minority party.)
In the case of the EU, we are taking this one remove further. The PM is just one vote of the many towards the appointment of Juncker (or whoever). If the EU Parliament had a (genuine) say, it would be better, but there would still be the issue of whether a demos exists. (Mind you: you could make the same case about Belgium, and we allow that that is a democracy.)
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered. le more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them aw to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK set up, the EU set up or both?
The current EU set up.
The UK has a parliamentary democracy - not directly comparable to a presidential one
Hmmmm. Plenty of unelected positions in the UK. You seem to be suffering from a mild case of cognitive dissonance . If democratic positions are as critical as you make out, I would have thought you might like to start at home.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
How do I fire the Latvian commissioner? Or Herr Selmayr?
Re the Latvian commissionar: I can't "fire" the MP in a neighbouring constituency either.
The issue, to my mind, with EU democracy is that it is another level of indirectness.
I elect my MP.
My MP chooses the PM.
The PM chooses the Cabinet.
(Obviously, at any stage I can miss out, if I vote for a loser either in my constituency, or an MP of a minority party.)
In the case of the EU, we are taking this one remove further. The PM is just one vote of the many towards the appointment of Juncker (or whoever). If the EU Parliament had a (genuine) say, it would be better, but there would still be the issue of whether a demos exists. (Mind you: you could make the same case about Belgium, and we allow that that is a democracy.)
The EU parliament does have a genuine say. The have vetoed members of Juncker's commission for example.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
Agree. The President of the Council (Tusk) is basically ceremonial. The President of the ECB (Draghi) is equivalent to our Bank of England Governor. The President of Parliament (Tajani) is equivalent to our Speaker, and is elected by the EU Parliament.
It’s only the EU Commission Pres (Juncker) that holds real power. Traditionally appointed via horse trading heads of government, he or she is now nominated by the largest party “grouping” in parliament. As I said upthread, it’s not ideal - but it’s not the unelected dictatorship of Brexiter fantasy either.
Ceromonial matters.
(The Queen is not democratically elected but people accept she represents the country. A washed up former politician from Poland doesn’t represent the people of Europe)
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
Do you really want a fully elected EU lead? It would lead to inevitable competition between the national leaders and the EU one, and is a step toward a true EU state.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
Agree. The President of the Council (Tusk) is basically ceremonial. The President of the ECB (Draghi) is equivalent to our Bank of England Governor. The President of Parliament (Tajani) is equivalent to our Speaker, and is elected by the EU Parliament.
It’s only the EU Commission Pres (Juncker) that holds real power. Traditionally appointed via horse trading heads of government, he or she is now nominated by the largest party “grouping” in parliament. As I said upthread, it’s not ideal - but it’s not the unelected dictatorship of Brexiter fantasy either.
Isn't our PM also nominated by the largest party “grouping” in [the Westimster] parliament.?
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
Do you really want a fully elected EU lead? It would lead to inevitable competition between the national leaders and the EU one, and is a step toward a true EU state.
I do not want that at all.
I agree.
As an aside, a close friend of mine has just been appointed an MEP. He now gets a Westminster MP's salary, plus an attendance allowance of £300 per day, plus free fast class travel, or if he travels by car, 80 p per mile.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered. le more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them aw to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK set up, the EU set up or both?
The current EU set up.
The UK has a parliamentary democracy - not directly comparable to a presidential one
Hmmmm. Plenty of unelected positions in the UK. You seem to be suffering from a mild case of cognitive dissonance . If democratic positions are as critical as you make out, I would have thought you might like to start at home.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
Agree. The President of the Council (Tusk) is basically ceremonial. The President of the ECB (Draghi) is equivalent to our Bank of England Governor. The President of Parliament (Tajani) is equivalent to our Speaker, and is elected by the EU Parliament.
It’s only the EU Commission Pres (Juncker) that holds real power. Traditionally appointed via horse trading heads of government, he or she is now nominated by the largest party “grouping” in parliament. As I said upthread, it’s not ideal - but it’s not the unelected dictatorship of Brexiter fantasy either.
Isn't our PM also nominated by the largest party “grouping” in [the Westimster] parliament.?
In some ways. But my issue is that the parliamentary groupings in the EU parliament are a bit fake, and I’d add that EU turnout is very low.
I am happy-ish with the current arrangement, but I’d propose that the Commission Prez needs 60% support from EU Parliament. I don’t like the EPP deciding it unto themselves.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
Do you really want a fully elected EU lead? It would lead to inevitable competition between the national leaders and the EU one, and is a step toward a true EU state.
I do not want that at all.
It would be a better set up for Europe, but I wouldn’t want the UK to be part of it
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in thesk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them aw to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK set up, the EU set up or both?
The current EU set up.
The UK has a parliamentary democracy - not directly comparable to a presidential one
Hmmmm. Plenty of unelected positions in the UK. You seem to be suffering from a mild case of cognitive dissonance . If democratic positions are as critical as you make out, I would have thought you might like to start at home.
I’m a fan of more elected positions in the UK
Clearly we can reform both then. So not a reason to leave.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
Do you really want a fully elected EU lead? It would lead to inevitable competition between the national leaders and the EU one, and is a step toward a true EU state.
I do not want that at all.
I agree.
As an aside, a close friend of mine has just been appointed an MEP. He now gets a Westminster MP's salary, plus an attendance allowance of £300 per day, plus free fast class travel, or if he travels by car, 80 p per mile.
To be frank, I think if we want better politicians we should make the offer more appealing. Pay for ministers and the PM has shrunk significantly since the 1940s in real terms.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
Agree. The President of the Council (Tusk) is basically ceremonial. The President of the ECB (Draghi) is equivalent to our Bank of England Governor. The President of Parliament (Tajani) is equivalent to our Speaker, and is elected by the EU Parliament.
It’s only the EU Commission Pres (Juncker) that holds real power. Traditionally appointed via horse trading heads of government, he or she is now nominated by the largest party “grouping” in parliament. As I said upthread, it’s not ideal - but it’s not the unelected dictatorship of Brexiter fantasy either.
Isn't our PM also nominated by the largest party “grouping” in [the Westimster] parliament.?
In some ways. But my issue is that the parliamentary groupings in the EU parliament are a bit fake, and I’d add that EU turnout is very low.
I am happy-ish with the current arrangement, but I’d propose that the Commission Prez needs 60% support from EU Parliament. I don’t like the EPP deciding it unto themselves.
Well, it's all a bit academic from the UK's perspective, since we've decided to renounce our ability to influence who gets the Commission President job - even though we will of course continue to be heavily impacted by their policies and actions.
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
Do you really want a fully elected EU lead? It would lead to inevitable competition between the national leaders and the EU one, and is a step toward a true EU state.
I do not want that at all.
It would be a better set up for Europe, but I wouldn’t want the UK to be part of it
I’m calling BS on this one.
Neither the Germans or French would ever go for it because it truly means the seed of a EU superstate and the end of the nation state. And the problem with *that* is the lack of demos at a Europe wide level.
Unless you are saying you do actually wish to see a EU superstate that can will it’s own demos into being (as say Italy did post reunification).
I think you’re being cute because you want to follow the “EU is undemocratic” argument.
To be frank, I think if we want better politicians we should make the offer more appealing. Pay for ministers and the PM has shrunk significantly since the 1940s in real terms.
Bless em. Must be hard making ends meet.
We do have a serious problem with the quality of our MPs. Don't think pay is the issue. It's putting up with bile and a lack of a private life that is the biggest barrier.
That and the fact you can achieve more good in business and public service .
''(The Queen is not democratically elected but people accept she represents the country. A washed up former politician from Poland doesn’t represent the people of Europe)'
Tusk doesn't even represent the people of Poland anymore. The Polish government did not want him reappointed and his former party barely polls 20 per cent,
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
You still don't get it
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
Oh, I get it.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
How do I fire the Latvian commissioner? Or Herr Selmayr?
Re the Latvian commissionar: I can't "fire" the MP in a neighbouring constituency either.
The issue, to my mind, with EU democracy is that it is another level of indirectness.
I elect my MP.
My MP chooses the PM.
The PM chooses the Cabinet.
(Obviously, at any stage I can miss out, if I vote for a loser either in my constituency, or an MP of a minority party.)
In the case of the EU, we are taking this one remove further. The PM is just one vote of the many towards the appointment of Juncker (or whoever). If the EU Parliament had a (genuine) say, it would be better, but there would still be the issue of whether a demos exists. (Mind you: you could make the same case about Belgium, and we allow that that is a democracy.)
The EU parliament does have a genuine say. The have vetoed members of Juncker's commission for example.
So? I don’t feel I owe any loyalty to it. Similar to Sinn Fein and Westminster I guess.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in thesk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them aw to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK set up, the EU set up or both?
The current EU set up.
The UK has a parliamentary democracy - not directly comparable to a presidential one
Hmmmm. Plenty of unelected positions in the UK. You seem to be suffering from a mild case of cognitive dissonance . If democratic positions are as critical as you make out, I would have thought you might like to start at home.
I’m a fan of more elected positions in the UK
Clearly we can reform both then. So not a reason to leave.
We’ve tried to reform Europe: they are not interested. QMV was the turning point for me
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in the UK. If anything I think the leave vote was partially driven out of frustration by people in safe seats who felt they had a once in a lifetime opportunity to cast a vote that mattered.
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
I do not want that at all.
I agree.
As an aside, a close friend of mine has just been appointed an MEP. He now gets a Westminster MP's salary, plus an attendance allowance of £300 per day, plus free fast class travel, or if he travels by car, 80 p per mile.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in thesk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them aw to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK set up, the EU set up or both?
The current EU set up.
The UK has a parliamentary democracy - not directly comparable to a presidential one
Hmmmm. Plenty of unelected positions in the UK. You seem to be suffering from a mild case of cognitive dissonance . If democratic positions are as critical as you make out, I would have thought you might like to start at home.
I’m a fan of more elected positions in the UK
Clearly we can reform both then. So not a reason to leave.
We’ve tried to reform Europe: they are not interested. QMV was the turning point for me
We supported QMV. Clearly your definition of we doesn’t extend to respecting the legitimacy of the British government.
As an aside, a close friend of mine has just been appointed an MEP. He now gets a Westminster MP's salary, plus an attendance allowance of £300 per day, plus free fast class travel, or if he travels by car, 80 p per mile.
To be frank, I think if we want better politicians we should make the offer more appealing. Pay for ministers and the PM has shrunk significantly since the 1940s in real terms.
In the first half of the last Century, the PM was on £10,000 and a Cabinet Minister on £5,000. A crude adjustment for inflation would have Theresa May trousering upwards of half a million quid, and worth every penny.
To be frank, I think if we want better politicians we should make the offer more appealing. Pay for ministers and the PM has shrunk significantly since the 1940s in real terms.
Bless em. Must be hard making ends meet.
We do have a serious problem with the quality of our MPs. Don't think pay is the issue. It's putting up with bile and a lack of a private life that is the biggest barrier.
That and the fact you can achieve more good in business and public service .
Trust a lefty like you to come up with a chippy comment like that. More money can make the bile and lack of privacy more tolerable.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in thesk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them aw to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK set up, the EU set up or both?
The current EU set up.
The UK has a parliamentary democracy - not directly comparable to a presidential one
Hmmmm. Plenty of unelected positions in the UK. You seem to be suffering from a mild case of cognitive dissonance . If democratic positions are as critical as you make out, I would have thought you might like to start at home.
I’m a fan of more elected positions in the UK
Clearly we can reform both then. So not a reason to leave.
We’ve tried to reform Europe: they are not interested. QMV was the turning point for me
a) We were always sovereign, the EU doesn't have that much of an impact on our daily lives b) We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is impossible
Pick one.
respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
Juncker and Tusk were selected by much the same method as May became PM. The Parliament decides, we do not vote directly for the executive here either.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
Do you really want a fully elected EU lead? It would lead to inevitable competition between the national leaders and the EU one, and is a step toward a true EU state.
I do not want that at all.
It would be a better set up for Europe, but I wouldn’t want the UK to be part of it
I’m calling BS on this one.
Neither the Germans or French would ever go for it because it truly means the seed of a EU superstate and the end of the nation state. And the problem with *that* is the lack of demos at a Europe wide level.
Unless you are saying you do actually wish to see a EU superstate that can will it’s own demos into being (as say Italy did post reunification).
I think you’re being cute because you want to follow the “EU is undemocratic” argument.
Nope.
I think the Euro was a bad idea (not an OCA). But once you have a currency and a central bank you need democratic oversight.
As an aside, a close friend of mine has just been appointed an MEP. He now gets a Westminster MP's salary, plus an attendance allowance of £300 per day, plus free fast class travel, or if he travels by car, 80 p per mile.
To be frank, I think if we want better politicians we should make the offer more appealing. Pay for ministers and the PM has shrunk significantly since the 1940s in real terms.
In the first half of the last Century, the PM was on £10,000 and a Cabinet Minister on £5,000. A crude adjustment for inflation would have Theresa May trousering upwards of half a million quid, and worth every penny.
I might be misremembering, and I'm also in favour of paying politicians a salary more commensurate with the market value of their skills, but I think senior cabinet Ministers were expected to pay for their official households, too?
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in thesk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them aw to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK set up, the EU set up or both?
The current EU set up.
The UK has a parliamentary democracy - not directly comparable to a presidential one
I’m a fan of more elected positions in the UK
Clearly we can reform both then. So not a reason to leave.
We’ve tried to reform Europe: they are not interested. QMV was the turning point for me
Did we, though?
It seems the great failure of British politics was in fact to fail to set out a consistent and positive case for reform over the last 20+ years. The EU has been a whipping boy and attempts to engage have been half hearted.
If we want to reform it, we need to put the time and effort in. I was surprised to learn the other day that UK officials comprise just 400 of the 7000 EU bureaucrats* - we’ll below expectation given the our size. We just haven’t bothered to invest.
*these figures v approximate and from memory. Will try to confirm
Edit: and another thing, who is *they*? You are guilty of the classic Brexit pathology: us versus “them”.
''(The Queen is not democratically elected but people accept she represents the country. A washed up former politician from Poland doesn’t represent the people of Europe)'
Tusk doesn't even represent the people of Poland anymore. The Polish government did not want him reappointed and his former party barely polls 20 per cent,
Yes, it is like our system of retired politicians becoming permanent members of the upper house, or EU commissioners, or heads of Quangos.
Interesting to see so much support for EFTA and EEA in Kipperhome.
To be frank, I think if we want better politicians we should make the offer more appealing. Pay for ministers and the PM has shrunk significantly since the 1940s in real terms.
Bless em. Must be hard making ends meet.
We do have a serious problem with the quality of our MPs. Don't think pay is the issue. It's putting up with bile and a lack of a private life that is the biggest barrier.
That and the fact you can achieve more good in business and public service .
Trust a lefty like you to come up with a chippy comment like that. More money can make the bile and lack of privacy more tolerable.
I doubt it. Especially when you can earn more and have more influence in the private sector and remain anonymous .
As an aside, a close friend of mine has just been appointed an MEP. He now gets a Westminster MP's salary, plus an attendance allowance of £300 per day, plus free fast class travel, or if he travels by car, 80 p per mile.
To be frank, I think if we want better politicians we should make the offer more appealing. Pay for ministers and the PM has shrunk significantly since the 1940s in real terms.
In the first half of the last Century, the PM was on £10,000 and a Cabinet Minister on £5,000. A crude adjustment for inflation would have Theresa May trousering upwards of half a million quid, and worth every penny.
Certainly it is ridiculous the PM is not even in the top 1% of earners, her salary is £150,402 and it requires £162,000 to enter the top 1%.
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in thesk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them aw to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK set up, the EU set up or both?
The current EU set
I’m a fan of more elected positions in the UK
Clearly we can reform both then. So not a reason to leave.
We’ve tried to reform Europe: they are not interested. QMV was the turning point for me
Did we, though?
It seems the great failure of British politics was in fact to fail to set out a consistent and positive case for reform over the last 20+ years. The EU has been a whipping boy and attempts to engage have been half hearted.
If we want to reform it, we need to put the time and effort in. I was surprised to learn the other day that UK officials comprise just 400 of the 7000 EU bureaucrats* - we’ll below expectation given the our size. We just haven’t bothered to invest.
*these figures v approximate and from memory. Will try to confirm
Apparently largely because candidates have to be fluent in two EU languages.
As an aside, a close friend of mine has just been appointed an MEP. He now gets a Westminster MP's salary, plus an attendance allowance of £300 per day, plus free fast class travel, or if he travels by car, 80 p per mile.
To be frank, I think if we want better politicians we should make the offer more appealing. Pay for ministers and the PM has shrunk significantly since the 1940s in real terms.
In the first half of the last Century, the PM was on £10,000 and a Cabinet Minister on £5,000. A crude adjustment for inflation would have Theresa May trousering upwards of half a million quid, and worth every penny.
I might be misremembering, and I'm also in favour of paying politicians a salary more commensurate with the market value of their skills, but I think senior cabinet Ministers were expected to pay for their official households, too?
Ministers with grace and favour homes were expected to pay for their own staff -- remember the Number 10 cook episode of Yes, Prime Minister. The book No More Champagne records that on becoming First Lord, Winston Churchill declined to move into Admiralty House as it meant paying for 12 servants.
To be frank, I think if we want better politicians we should make the offer more appealing. Pay for ministers and the PM has shrunk significantly since the 1940s in real terms.
Bless em. Must be hard making ends meet.
We do have a serious problem with the quality of our MPs. Don't think pay is the issue. It's putting up with bile and a lack of a private life that is the biggest barrier.
That and the fact you can achieve more good in business and public service .
Trust a lefty like you to come up with a chippy comment like that. More money can make the bile and lack of privacy more tolerable.
I doubt it. Especially when you can earn more and have more influence in the private sector and remain anonymous .
More money won't make a difference because you can earn more money in the private sector?
To be frank, I think if we want better politicians we should make the offer more appealing. Pay for ministers and the PM has shrunk significantly since the 1940s in real terms.
Bless em. Must be hard making ends meet.
We do have a serious problem with the quality of our MPs. Don't think pay is the issue. It's putting up with bile and a lack of a private life that is the biggest barrier.
That and the fact you can achieve more good in business and public service .
Trust a lefty like you to come up with a chippy comment like that. More money can make the bile and lack of privacy more tolerable.
I doubt it. Especially when you can earn more and have more influence in the private sector and remain anonymous .
Have more influence? There are well-paid managers (not executives) in corporates that earn more than Cabinet ministers.
Are you seriously suggesting they have more influence over the nation’s future than ministers responsible for education or defence?
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in thesk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them aw to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK set up, the EU set up or both?
The current EU set
I’m a fan of more elected positions in the UK
Clearly we can reform both then. So not a reason to leave.
We’ve tried to reform Europe: they are not interested. QMV was the turning point for me
If we want to reform it, we need to put the time and effort in. I was surprised to learn the other day that UK officials comprise just 400 of the 7000 EU bureaucrats* - we’ll below expectation given the our size. We just haven’t bothered to invest.
*these figures v approximate and from memory. Will try to confirm
Apparently largely because candidates have to be fluent in two EU languages.
Yes, apparently so. But surely not beyond our ability to train wannabe diplomats in the requisite capabilities.
As an aside, a close friend of mine has just been appointed an MEP. He now gets a Westminster MP's salary, plus an attendance allowance of £300 per day, plus free fast class travel, or if he travels by car, 80 p per mile.
To be frank, I think if we want better politicians we should make the offer more appealing. Pay for ministers and the PM has shrunk significantly since the 1940s in real terms.
In the first half of the last Century, the PM was on £10,000 and a Cabinet Minister on £5,000. A crude adjustment for inflation would have Theresa May trousering upwards of half a million quid, and worth every penny.
I might be misremembering, and I'm also in favour of paying politicians a salary more commensurate with the market value of their skills, but I think senior cabinet Ministers were expected to pay for their official households, too?
Ministers with grace and favour homes were expected to pay for their own staff -- remember the Number 10 cook episode of Yes, Prime Minister. The book No More Champagne records that on becoming First Lord, Winston Churchill declined to move into Admiralty House as it meant paying for 12 servants.
Indeed - thats where I remembered it from. Cracking read, that one.
who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in thesk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them aw to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
So anyone who votes Conservative in the UK does not have a meaningful say because the decision is a carve up between two federalist advocating groups in the parliament.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westminster/Whitehall is not a bastion of pure democracy. People who argue about unelected positions need to be careful. I heard someone arguing that unelected heads of the EU were unacceptable. You couldn't make it up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK set up, the EU set up or both?
The current EU set up.
The UK has a parliamentary democracy - not directly comparable to a presidential one
Hmmmm. Plenty of unelected positions in the UK. You seem to be suffering from a mild case of cognitive dissonance . If democratic positions are as critical as you make out, I would have thought you might like to start at home.
I’m a fan of more elected positions in the UK
Clearly we can reform both then. So not a reason to leave.
We’ve tried to reform Europe: they are not interested. QMV was the turning point for me
We supported QMV. Clearly your definition of we doesn’t extend to respecting the legitimacy of the British government.
They didn’t have the authority to give away those rights without consulting the people. There should have been a referendum on the EU constitution/Lisbon treaty
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
In the 450 to 500 safe seats, you don't have that power. There are seats that have been held by the same party since 1910.
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
I agree, electoral reform is much needed in thesk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them aw to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
Yep, just as no Green, UKIP, PC or SNP voter gets a say in the government in Westminster. They are outvoted by bigger parties. That is how democracy works.
Westmin up.
A directly elected EU President would be far more democratic than the current set up
The UK set up, the EU set up or both?
The current EU set
I’m a fan of more elected positions in the UK
Clearly we can reform both then. So not a reason to leave.
We’ve tried to reform Europe: they are not interested. QMV was the turning point for me
If we want to reform it, we need to put the time and effort in. I was surprised to learn the other day that UK officials comprise just 400 of the 7000 EU bureaucrats* - we’ll below expectation given the our size. We just haven’t bothered to invest.
*these figures v approximate and from memory. Will try to confirm
Apparently largely because candidates have to be fluent in two EU languages.
Yes, apparently so. But surely not beyond our ability to train wannabe diplomats in the requisite capabilities.
DExEU will be full of young civil servants who actually understand the EU. A great training ground.
Comments
These disclosure rules came about as a result of the Irish miscarriage of justice cases decades ago when the police failed to disclose highly relevant evidence to the defence. There was a Runciman Commission which recommended changes which were eventually enacted.
That is really quite long enough for the legal/justice establishment to understand what the rules are and learn how to implement them. This stuff was new when I started my career nearly 4 decades ago.
It's gone wrong because it's not seen as important, because there are second or third rate people in the key state agencies, because legal aid has been slashed so they are not effectively challenged by the defence and for all sorts of other reasons as well.
The law matters. The rule of law matters. An effective judicial and criminal system matters.
We are not getting it and we will - all - as a society be the poorer for it.
Play nicely.
I am going out now and may be some time.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 43, hahahahaha!
You sound like Chris Huhne arguing that joining the single currency would give us more power.
We were always sovereign
We are so intertwined with the EU that leaving is expensive, difficult and leaves us worse off in almost every respect.
Brexit is a bad idea, was always a bad idea, will always be a bad idea. In years to come, few will remember voting for it
In my view we ceased being soverign the moment we accepted QMV. At the moment we are only sovereign in the sense we are free to leave at any time, otherwise we have to submit to laws we don't agree with and may go against our national interests. As you seem to be of the opinion that leaving is so difficult as to be practically impossible, we are not sovereign at all in practice.
I want the right to hire and fire those who make the laws that govern me - that is what living in a democracy is. Why is that so hard to understand?
The EU Parliament is elected by PR.
John Major is due to speak. I don’t think the Tory Party needs his advice about how to handle European issues.
Anyway, I must be off (although, unlike Miss Cyclefree, I'm not swanning off to some aristocratic banquet, but just going to watch some sci-fi
However comparing the UK Parliament to the EU one is like comparing apples and oranges. The EU Parliament is a toothless talking shop and little more than a rubber stamp. As for Tusk, Juncker, etc - I don't remember voting for them and I don't have the damnedest clue how to get rid of them. Except by voting to leave. These people have too much power over our lives and far too little accountability.
There has been too much focus on sovereignty in the UK debate: "sovereignty, in the sense of unfettered freedom of action, is a nonsense. A man, naked, hungry and alone in the middle of the Sahara desert is free in the sense that no-one can tell him what to do. He is sovereign, then. But he is also doomed. It is often preferable to accept constraints on freedom of action in order to achieve some other benefit." As Mrs.Thatcher said in 1975: "Almost every major nation has been obliged by the pressures of the post-war world to pool significant areas of sovereignty so as to create more effective political units."
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-00-1220_en.htm
"One English winemaker is already planning for the Brexit celebrations and/or sorrows-drownings, by bottling up its rough approximation of champagne in pint bottles. Because Winston Churchill said so."
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2018/02/itll-be-pints-of-champagne-for-everyone-on-brexit-day/
One of the attributes of an effective criminal justice system is that its procedures should overcome any individual or collective biases.
How do I fire the Speaker? or the CEO of the NHS, or any of the HoL? let alone the Head of State.
I think Commission Prezs should be approved by a 60% majority of the European Parliament. We want grey consensus builders not wedge issue politicos.
There is no right of centre party in the UK that is a member of one of the blocs that play swapsie with the EU leadership
https://twitter.com/Hayley_Barlow/status/968564068264144896
The UK has a parliamentary democracy - not directly comparable to a presidential one
The President of the Council (Tusk) is basically ceremonial. The President of the ECB (Draghi) is equivalent to our Bank of England Governor. The President of Parliament (Tajani) is equivalent to our Speaker, and is elected by the EU Parliament.
It’s only the EU Commission Pres (Juncker) that holds real power. Traditionally appointed via horse trading heads of government, he or she is now nominated by the largest party “grouping” in parliament. As I said upthread, it’s not ideal - but it’s not the unelected dictatorship of Brexiter fantasy either.
The issue, to my mind, with EU democracy is that it is another level of indirectness.
I elect my MP.
My MP chooses the PM.
The PM chooses the Cabinet.
(Obviously, at any stage I can miss out, if I vote for a loser either in my constituency, or an MP of a minority party.)
In the case of the EU, we are taking this one remove further. The PM is just one vote of the many towards the appointment of Juncker (or whoever). If the EU Parliament had a (genuine) say, it would be better, but there would still be the issue of whether a demos exists. (Mind you: you could make the same case about Belgium, and we allow that that is a democracy.)
(The Queen is not democratically elected but people accept she represents the country. A washed up former politician from Poland doesn’t represent the people of Europe)
I do not want that at all.
As an aside, a close friend of mine has just been appointed an MEP. He now gets a Westminster MP's salary, plus an attendance allowance of £300 per day, plus free fast class travel, or if he travels by car, 80 p per mile.
But my issue is that the parliamentary groupings in the EU parliament are a bit fake, and I’d add that EU turnout is very low.
I am happy-ish with the current arrangement, but I’d propose that the Commission Prez needs 60% support from EU Parliament. I don’t like the EPP deciding it unto themselves.
Neither the Germans or French would ever go for it because it truly means the seed of a EU superstate and the end of the nation state. And the problem with *that* is the lack of demos at a Europe wide level.
Unless you are saying you do actually wish to see a EU superstate that can will it’s own demos into being (as say Italy did post reunification).
I think you’re being cute because you want to follow the “EU is undemocratic” argument.
Even more Tory members oppose joining the EEA which is opposed by 68% with just 14% in favour.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/02/our-survey-party-members-overwhelmingly-oppose-the-norway-option-the-majority-against-a-swiss-model-is-less-emphatic.html
We do have a serious problem with the quality of our MPs. Don't think pay is the issue. It's putting up with bile and a lack of a private life that is the biggest barrier.
That and the fact you can achieve more good in business and public service .
Tusk doesn't even represent the people of Poland anymore. The Polish government did not want him reappointed and his former party barely polls 20 per cent,
It’s like asking the Tory membership their view on particle physics.
I laugh even more when Brexiters think Verhofstadt is speaking for some large amorphous “them” - meaning the EU or perhaps the entire continent.
When you drill into them, most Brexit arguments lack any factual basis whatsoever.
I think the Euro was a bad idea (not an OCA). But once you have a currency and a central bank you need democratic oversight.
It seems the great failure of British politics was in fact to fail to set out a consistent and positive case for reform over the last 20+ years. The EU has been a whipping boy and attempts to engage have been half hearted.
If we want to reform it, we need to put the time and effort in. I was surprised to learn the other day that UK officials comprise just 400 of the 7000 EU bureaucrats* - we’ll below expectation given the our size. We just haven’t bothered to invest.
*these figures v approximate and from memory. Will try to confirm
Edit: and another thing, who is *they*? You are guilty of the classic Brexit pathology: us versus “them”.
Interesting to see so much support for EFTA and EEA in Kipperhome.
The same applies to the Cabinet on £141,405
Are you seriously suggesting they have more influence over the nation’s future than ministers responsible for education or defence?