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”.
“They” in this case is the other heads of government
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
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”.
Hear, hear. The UK has never fully engaged. In the 1950s, it failed to go to the talks which led to the formation of the EEC. France was in a position to write most of the rules. Much later, the UK complained that certain aspects of the EU weren't to its liking.
If there are 7,000 EU officials, it sounds as if 900 should be from the UK, given the various states' populations.
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 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.
Draghi was approved by a majority of Euro-currency parliamentarians, and is accountable to parliament.
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
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
+1
The crown-in-parliament is no longer sovereign when it conflicts with the collective narcissism of a section of the populace...
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?
Sure. Jonny Ive, probably has had more influence on our lives than most politicians ever will. A decent sized company can have a lot of impact.
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
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
+1
The crown-in-parliament is no longer sovereign when it conflicts with the collective narcissism of a section of the populace...
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
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
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
+1
The crown-in-parliament is no longer sovereign when it conflicts with the collective narcissism of a section of the populace...
The problem with that facile argument, of course, is that the Government changes, but you don't want our policy as regards European integration, and our presence in it, to change.
Who is denying the power of the crown in parliament now?
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
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
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
+1
The crown-in-parliament is no longer sovereign when it conflicts with the collective narcissism of a section of the populace...
The problem with that facile argument, of course, is that the Government changes, but you don't want our policy as regards European integration, and our presence in it, to change.
Who is denying the power of the crown in parliament now?
I’m not denying its democratic legitimacy. There’s a difference.
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
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
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
+1
The crown-in-parliament is no longer sovereign when it conflicts with the collective narcissism of a section of the populace...
The problem with that facile argument, of course, is that the Government changes, but you don't want our policy as regards European integration, and our presence in it, to change.
Who is denying the power of the crown in parliament now?
Probably the Daily Mail. Calling judges traitors .
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
*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.
They lose 3% of the staff each month and only keep bums on seats by sending out the Press-gang into the FCO and Civil Service.
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
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
+1
The crown-in-parliament is no longer sovereign when it conflicts with the collective narcissism of a section of the populace...
The problem with that facile argument, of course, is that the Government changes, but you don't want our policy as regards European integration, and our presence in it, to change.
Who is denying the power of the crown in parliament now?
I’m not denying its democratic legitimacy. There’s a difference.
Understanding the difference between what the government were entitled to do by law, and should have done according to the morality of public service, is of course beyond some....
Any Tory MP contemplating walking through the division lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and Sinn Fein in order to break a manifesto commitment might want to consider how this will go down with their constituency association.
Tory MPs in 1992/93 broke a manifesto commitment and voted with Jeremy Corbyn on a regular basis.
True, but in that instance I doubt the constituency associations minded too much.
They were traitors who helped enable thirteen years of a Labour government.
Didn't the poll tax and sleaze have anything to do with the Tories being kicked out?
Ps - I thought the tory "leavers" were headbangers in the 90's - now it seems a lot of what they said is actually coming to pass.
The Tories won a majority after the poll tax.
The poll tax was only introduced in Scotland as I recall, not England Wales or NI.
Did not go down well with voters in Scotland.
It was introduced in England; just a year after Scotland.
Leastways, I remember having to pay it in 1991-ish.
Poll tax was first introduced in Scotland, followed by England and Wales but never NI.
Its abolishment was announced not long after its introduction so it only lasted a few years before being replaced by Community Charge.
Indeed, and they ignored the populace having promised the populace a specific say in an election manifesto. The poor old populace eventually got the say it should’ve had ten years previously or so on the Constitution on June 23rd 2016. Except it was in/out, when it could’ve been yes/no on the Constitution
Reneging on that referendum promise was the most dingbat idiocy.
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
+1
The crown-in-parliament is no longer sovereign when it conflicts with the collective narcissism of a section of the populace...
Haha. Charles hoist by own petard there!
Nope. The Crown-in-Parliament exercises the residue of royal prerogative. Over time I’d expect most of those to accrete to Parliament.
Parliament’s authority to act on our behalf comes from the validation of the people at elections. Neither of them gave the right to delegate lawmaking power to an body that is not directly answerable to the British people or their representatives
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
Quite. People couldn’t be arsed to apply to work there. Tells it’s own story in an odd way.
We were just never enthused. Our hearts were just not collectively in it.
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
You have to learn a language of questionable utility and live in a ghastly city to work for the EU. Why do that when the City is on your doorstep?
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
You have to learn a language of questionable utility and live in a ghastly city to work for the EU. Why do that when the City is on your doorstep?
A good argument for staying in the EU and allowing London to be the New York of the EU to Brussels’ Washington.
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 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
We supported QMV. Clearly your definition of we doesn’t extend to respecting the legitimacy of the British government.
+1
The crown-in-parliament is no longer sovereign when it conflicts with the collective narcissism of a section of the populace...
Haha. Charles hoist by own petard there!
Nope. The Crown-in-Parliament exercises the residue of royal prerogative. Over time I’d expect most of those to accrete to Parliament.
Parliament’s authority to act on our behalf comes from the validation of the people at elections. Neither of them gave the right to delegate lawmaking power to an body that is not directly answerable to the British people or their representatives
You were arguing the other night that the Crown-in-Parliament should be at liberty to make treaties without hindrance from Parliament.
Successive governments have first negotiated, then effected, the Lisbon Treaty, and those governments have all been voted in by us and commanded the majority of support in Parliament.
PS I agree with you that we ought to have had a ref on Lisbon. Because I think democracy extends just a little beyond the “Crown-in-Parliament” refrain.
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
You have to learn a language of questionable utility and live in a ghastly city to work for the EU. Why do that when the City is on your doorstep?
A good argument for staying in the EU and allowing London to be the New York of the EU to Brussels’ Washington.
Any Tory MP contemplating walking through the division lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and Sinn Fein in order to break a manifesto commitment might want to consider how this will go down with their constituency association.
Tory MPs in 1992/93 broke a manifesto commitment and voted with Jeremy Corbyn on a regular basis.
True, but in that instance I doubt the constituency associations minded too much.
They were traitors who helped enable thirteen years of a Labour government.
Didn't the poll tax and sleaze have anything to do with the Tories being kicked out?
Ps - I thought the tory "leavers" were headbangers in the 90's - now it seems a lot of what they said is actually coming to pass.
The Tories won a majority after the poll tax.
The poll tax was only introduced in Scotland as I recall, not England Wales or NI.
Did not go down well with voters in Scotland.
It was introduced in England; just a year after Scotland.
Leastways, I remember having to pay it in 1991-ish.
Poll tax was first introduced in Scotland, followed by England and Wales but never NI.
Its abolishment was announced not long after its introduction so it only lasted a few years before being replaced by Community Charge.
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
Quite. People couldn’t be arsed to apply to work there. Tells it’s own story in an odd way.
We were just never enthused. Our hearts were just not collectively in it.
Sure. Brussels is not the most exciting place to be posted. Neither is Kabul, but we send people there if we think our foreign policy depends on it.
Can't see SF taking their seats as (1) if they take them once, their "purity" is corrupted (if their eyes) and they then need to justify the next time and next time etc why they do not use their votes (2) they will just seem like any other political group so why not just vote SDLP and (3) why are they going to help out a PM from a political party that they consider traitors for being prepared to accept the British Crown post-1922?
From Previous Thread
Mike knows far more than about me about many things but I disagree with the idea that Tories are at greater risk from Tory remainers defecting than Labour is from its Leavers. The fundamental flaw is thinking of Brexit as Leavers and Remainers, when in fact there were three distinct groups,
1. Leavers - who were ardent, there were no "reluctant" Leavers; 2. Reluctant Remainers - who voted Remain because they feared the economic consequences but who had no love for the EU; 3. Enthusiastic Remainers, who love the EU.
There is no doubt that the Tories have lost group 3. What I don't think they have lost is group 2. Seat-wise, the Tory seats that are estimated to have voted Remain are ones that are heavily represented by people who work in the City or related areas - St Albans, SW Surrey, Winchester, Wokingham, Epsom - and who feared a Leave vote may cause disruption. These are people whose primary motivation is their lifestyles, wealth and their kids' private schools where they are have a disproportionate number. To most, Brexit was a fear, now it has happened, it does not seem so bad, and it certainly does not seem as bad as a JC-led Government.
However, for Labour, the problem is that Leavers are ardent. They believe in their cause. And that trumps others considerations for many. In effect, it is a version of what happened in the 1900s and the shift away of the Working Class from both Liberals and Conservatives to Labour as Class superseded previously supposed certainties of Religion and Trade. This is why you are now seeing the Conservatives take Mansfield and a Stoke seat, polling and why seats like Bishops Auckland that had 10K Labour majorities in 2005 are now ultra-marginal. Labour managed to square the circle enough last time where many felt they could still vote for a JC led Labour as it was felt he was really a Brexiteer. Now that the nice, London-based, middle class lawyer Sir Keir Starmer seems to be directing the flow, the scales are falling from their eyes.
''(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.
Even I take part in Conhome and no one can accuse me of being a kipper
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
Quite. People couldn’t be arsed to apply to work there. Tells it’s own story in an odd way.
We were just never enthused. Our hearts were just not collectively in it.
Sure. Brussels is not the most exciting place to be posted. Neither is Kabul, but we send people there if we think our foreign policy depends on it.
True! But we can’t quite put civil servants under martial law and dragoon them to live in Anderlecht or commute from Waterloo (!). If they don’t like it they’ll leave and get another job. The army isn’t allowed that sort of freedom, of course, for as long as you are signed on for.
Can't see SF taking their seats as (1) if they take them once, their "purity" is corrupted (if their eyes) and they then need to justify the next time and next time etc why they do not use their votes (2) they will just seem like any other political group so why not just vote SDLP and (3) why are they going to help out a PM from a political party that they consider traitors for being prepared to accept the British Crown post-1922?
From Previous Thread
Mike knows far more than about me about many things but I disagree with the idea that Tories are at greater risk from Tory remainers defecting than Labour is from its Leavers. The fundamental flaw is thinking of Brexit as Leavers and Remainers, when in fact there were three distinct groups,
1. Leavers - who were ardent, there were no "reluctant" Leavers; 2. Reluctant Remainers - who voted Remain because they feared the economic consequences but who had no love for the EU; 3. Enthusiastic Remainers, who love the EU.
There is no doubt that the Tories have lost group 3. What I don't think they have lost is group 2. Seat-wise, the Tory seats that are estimated to have voted Remain are ones that are heavily represented by people who work in the City or related areas - St Albans, SW Surrey, Winchester, Wokingham, Epsom - and who feared a Leave vote may cause disruption. These are people whose primary motivation is their lifestyles, wealth and their kids' private schools where they are have a disproportionate number. To most, Brexit was a fear, now it has happened, it does not seem so bad, and it certainly does not seem as bad as a JC-led Government.
However, for Labour, the problem is that Leavers are ardent. They believe in their cause. And that trumps others considerations for many. In effect, it is a version of what happened in the 1900s and the shift away of the Working Class from both Liberals and Conservatives to Labour as Class superseded previously supposed certainties of Religion and Trade. This is why you are now seeing the Conservatives take Mansfield and a Stoke seat, polling and why seats like Bishops Auckland that had 10K Labour majorities in 2005 are now ultra-marginal. Labour managed to square the circle enough last time where many felt they could still vote for a JC led Labour as it was felt he was really a Brexiteer. Now that the nice, London-based, middle class lawyer Sir Keir Starmer seems to be directing the flow, the scales are falling from their eyes.
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
You have to learn a language of questionable utility and live in a ghastly city to work for the EU. Why do that when the City is on your doorstep?
A good argument for staying in the EU and allowing London to be the New York of the EU to Brussels’ Washington.
A better argument for leaving the EU and allowing London to be New York and Ottawa combined.
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
Quite. People couldn’t be arsed to apply to work there. Tells it’s own story in an odd way.
We were just never enthused. Our hearts were just not collectively in it.
Sure. Brussels is not the most exciting place to be posted. Neither is Kabul, but we send people there if we think our foreign policy depends on it.
True! But we can’t quite put civil servants under martial law and dragoon them to live in Anderlecht or commute from Waterloo (!). If they don’t like it they’ll leave and get another job. The army isn’t allowed that sort of freedom, of course, for as long as you are signed on for.
Surely Boris could get behind a Waterloo campus for young British Euro-bureaucrats?
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”.
Hear, hear. The UK has never fully engaged. In the 1950s, it failed to go to the talks which led to the formation of the EEC. France was in a position to write most of the rules. Much later, the UK complained that certain aspects of the EU weren't to its liking.
If there are 7,000 EU officials, it sounds as if 900 should be from the UK, given the various states' populations.
We never wished to engage. We ought not to have joined.
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
Quite. People couldn’t be arsed to apply to work there. Tells it’s own story in an odd way.
We were just never enthused. Our hearts were just not collectively in it.
Sure. Brussels is not the most exciting place to be posted. Neither is Kabul, but we send people there if we think our foreign policy depends on it.
True! But we can’t quite put civil servants under martial law and dragoon them to live in Anderlecht or commute from Waterloo (!). If they don’t like it they’ll leave and get another job. The army isn’t allowed that sort of freedom, of course, for as long as you are signed on for.
Surely Boris could get behind a Waterloo campus for young British Euro-bureaucrats?
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
You have to learn a language of questionable utility and live in a ghastly city to work for the EU. Why do that when the City is on your doorstep?
Living in London is not so great on a Civil Service Salary, not only is pay better, but Brussels is cheaper. Language is one issue (though I think Euro bureau language tests are tougher than FCO). Another issue is the politics of promotion, with a job going to Spain or Italy "because it is their turn" though that may favour Brits at present stats.
As a matter of interest how are the stats for Ireland?
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
Quite. People couldn’t be arsed to apply to work there. Tells it’s own story in an odd way.
We were just never enthused. Our hearts were just not collectively in it.
Sure. Brussels is not the most exciting place to be posted. Neither is Kabul, but we send people there if we think our foreign policy depends on it.
True! But we can’t quite put civil servants under martial law and dragoon them to live in Anderlecht or commute from Waterloo (!). If they don’t like it they’ll leave and get another job. The army isn’t allowed that sort of freedom, of course, for as long as you are signed on for.
Surely Boris could get behind a Waterloo campus for young British Euro-bureaucrats?
HQ at Hougoumont Chateau?
Indeed! It’s the non-Brexit that Brexiters have been waiting for.
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
+1
Not that giving the "wrong" answer would have made a blind bit of difference.
Update. I think my figures related just to the Parliament staff. For the commission as a whole, I’m told the U.K. has just 1,500 out of 47,000. We should be on 6,000 considering our population, more if you think about economic weight.
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
You have to learn a language of questionable utility and live in a ghastly city to work for the EU. Why do that when the City is on your doorstep?
Living in London is not so great on a Civil Service Salary, not only is pay better, but Brussels is cheaper. Language is one issue (though I think Euro bureau language tests are tougher than FCO). Another issue is the politics of promotion, with a job going to Spain or Italy "because it is their turn" though that may favour Brits at present stats.
As a matter of interest how are the stats for Ireland?
Of the six heads of the Commission bureaucracy before Selmayr, two have been Irish and one British.
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
+1
Not that giving the "wrong" answer would have made a blind bit of difference.
Quite possibly, but the utter contempt with which we were treated stuck in the craw and festered. We were promised a vote on extra power being transferred from the U.K. to the EU other 27. They pulled the plug because they feared losing the vote. They deserved whatever they felt when the Sunderland result was read out.
You were arguing the other night that the Crown-in-Parliament should be at liberty to make treaties without hindrance from Parliament.
Successive governments have first negotiated, then effected, the Lisbon Treaty, and those governments have all been voted in by us and commanded the majority of support in Parliament.
PS I agree with you that we ought to have had a ref on Lisbon. Because I think democracy extends just a little beyond the “Crown-in-Parliament” refrain.
Two changes I think we should make (but almost certainly won't) in the near future.
1. All Royal Prerogative powers should be stripped from the executive and dealt with by votes through Parliament. This does not mean we necessarily have to bind the hands of the Government in making treaties etc. But the final say in making or breaking treaties, going to war etc should be made by Parliament not the executive.
The obvious exception will be if we are attacked and a decision has to be made about retaliation and defence. But that is, I think everyone would agree, an exceptional circumstance.
2. No Constitutional changes should be made without a referendum. Anything that removes power from Parliament or changes the voting system - anything that fundamentally changes the relationship between Parliament and the people - should be decided by the people directly not by Parliament or the executive alone.
Quite possibly, but the utter contempt with which we were treated stuck in the craw and festered. We were promised a vote on extra power being transferred from the U.K. to the EU other 27. They pulled the plug because they feared losing the vote. They deserved whatever they felt when the Sunderland result was read out.
If our political masters are bloody stupid again and Brexit ends up as a stitch-up there will be hell to pay.
You were arguing the other night that the Crown-in-Parliament should be at liberty to make treaties without hindrance from Parliament.
Successive governments have first negotiated, then effected, the Lisbon Treaty, and those governments have all been voted in by us and commanded the majority of support in Parliament.
PS I agree with you that we ought to have had a ref on Lisbon. Because I think democracy extends just a little beyond the “Crown-in-Parliament” refrain.
Two changes I think we should make (but almost certainly won't) in the near future.
1. All Royal Prerogative powers should be stripped from the executive and dealt with by votes through Parliament. This does not mean we necessarily have to bind the hands of the Government in making treaties etc. But the final say in making or breaking treaties, going to war etc should be made by Parliament not the executive.
The obvious exception will be if we are attacked and a decision has to be made about retaliation and defence. But that is, I think everyone would agree, an exceptional circumstance.
2. No Constitutional changes should be made without a referendum. Anything that removes power from Parliament or changes the voting system - anything that fundamentally changes the relationship between Parliament and the people - should be decided by the people directly not by Parliament or the executive alone.
Agreed but on point 2. for constitutional change there has to be a threshold beyond a simple majority of those voting - either a 2/3rds majority of those voting or an absolute majority of the electorate.
On topic. I don’t see SF members taking their seats. But considering the argument for them doing so over Brexit, simply adding seven to the opposition cannot be assumed surely? Even if SF turned up and voted against the Govt on every crucial vote no one knows what effect that would have on other members. The most Europhile Conservatives (heirs to Neave, Berry, Gow) might recoil from joining them in the lobby. Who knows, even some of the PLP might baulk at it (though not the Corbyn/McDonnell shower obviously).
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.
Even worse (better?) than that. £1 before the First World War is worth approximately £100 now, so Asquith was getting approximately £1 million, with senior Cabinet ministers getting the equivalent of half a million.
The cost of living doubled, I think, during the First World War but I don't believe there were any rises in salaries for ministers or MPs until after the Second World War, after another bout of inflation (the Churchill book referenced earlier has approximate values of sterling for each decade as compared to today).
Living in London is not so great on a Civil Service Salary, not only is pay better, but Brussels is cheaper. Language is one issue (though I think Euro bureau language tests are tougher than FCO).
I've coached a few people for the Commission language tests and they are very thorough. You need CEFR C1 (Effective Operational Proficiency) in one language and CERF B2 (Vantage) in another. For more senior positions (ie ones of any influence) you need C2 (Mastery) and C1 in the second.
These are just the minimums. You get candidates presenting with multiple C1/B2 proficiency in three or four languages. UK candidates are pretty poor at this. Most reasonably diligent graduates from European universities will have English at B2/B1 but very few UK graduates have a second language at that level.
Having said that I intensively tutored a young Economics graduate for her Commission language test and she went from almost no knowledge of French (not even GCSE) to B2 in 8 months and got a position. So you can do it if you want it badly enough.
Comments
If there are 7,000 EU officials, it sounds as if 900 should be from the UK, given the various states' populations.
Who is denying the power of the crown in parliament now?
Its abolishment was announced not long after its introduction so it only lasted a few years before being replaced by Community Charge.
“Crown in Parliament”
Indeed, and they ignored the populace having promised the populace a specific say in an election manifesto. The poor old populace eventually got the say it should’ve had ten years previously or so on the Constitution on June 23rd 2016. Except it was in/out, when it could’ve been yes/no on the Constitution
Reneging on that referendum promise was the most dingbat idiocy.
Parliament’s authority to act on our behalf comes from the validation of the people at elections. Neither of them gave the right to delegate lawmaking power to an body that is not directly answerable to the British people or their representatives
I also found this:
A 2013 report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee noted that UK nationals working for the EU institutions is one source of British influence in the EU. Worryingly for the UK government, the number of British EU staff appears to be on a downward trend. The latest figures from the European Commission show only 3.8% of its staff are British, compared to 17.8% from Belgium, 12.5% from Italy, 10.2% from France and even 4.3% from Romania.
Romania!
We just couldn’t be arsed.
We were just never enthused. Our hearts were just not collectively in it.
Successive governments have first negotiated, then effected, the Lisbon Treaty, and those governments have all been voted in by us and commanded the majority of support in Parliament.
PS I agree with you that we ought to have had a ref on Lisbon. Because I think democracy extends just a little beyond the “Crown-in-Parliament” refrain.
Can't see SF taking their seats as (1) if they take them once, their "purity" is corrupted (if their eyes) and they then need to justify the next time and next time etc why they do not use their votes (2) they will just seem like any other political group so why not just vote SDLP and (3) why are they going to help out a PM from a political party that they consider traitors for being prepared to accept the British Crown post-1922?
From Previous Thread
Mike knows far more than about me about many things but I disagree with the idea that Tories are at greater risk from Tory remainers defecting than Labour is from its Leavers. The fundamental flaw is thinking of Brexit as Leavers and Remainers, when in fact there were three distinct groups,
1. Leavers - who were ardent, there were no "reluctant" Leavers;
2. Reluctant Remainers - who voted Remain because they feared the economic consequences but who had no love for the EU;
3. Enthusiastic Remainers, who love the EU.
There is no doubt that the Tories have lost group 3. What I don't think they have lost is group 2. Seat-wise, the Tory seats that are estimated to have voted Remain are ones that are heavily represented by people who work in the City or related areas - St Albans, SW Surrey, Winchester, Wokingham, Epsom - and who feared a Leave vote may cause disruption. These are people whose primary motivation is their lifestyles, wealth and their kids' private schools where they are have a disproportionate number. To most, Brexit was a fear, now it has happened, it does not seem so bad, and it certainly does not seem as bad as a JC-led Government.
However, for Labour, the problem is that Leavers are ardent. They believe in their cause. And that trumps others considerations for many. In effect, it is a version of what happened in the 1900s and the shift away of the Working Class from both Liberals and Conservatives to Labour as Class superseded previously supposed certainties of Religion and Trade. This is why you are now seeing the Conservatives take Mansfield and a Stoke seat, polling and why seats like Bishops Auckland that had 10K Labour majorities in 2005 are now ultra-marginal. Labour managed to square the circle enough last time where many felt they could still vote for a JC led Labour as it was felt he was really a Brexiteer. Now that the nice, London-based, middle class lawyer Sir Keir Starmer seems to be directing the flow, the scales are falling from their eyes.
As a matter of interest how are the stats for Ireland?
1. All Royal Prerogative powers should be stripped from the executive and dealt with by votes through Parliament. This does not mean we necessarily have to bind the hands of the Government in making treaties etc. But the final say in making or breaking treaties, going to war etc should be made by Parliament not the executive.
The obvious exception will be if we are attacked and a decision has to be made about retaliation and defence. But that is, I think everyone would agree, an exceptional circumstance.
2. No Constitutional changes should be made without a referendum. Anything that removes power from Parliament or changes the voting system - anything that fundamentally changes the relationship between Parliament and the people - should be decided by the people directly not by Parliament or the executive alone.
NEW THREAD
The cost of living doubled, I think, during the First World War but I don't believe there were any rises in salaries for ministers or MPs until after the Second World War, after another bout of inflation (the Churchill book referenced earlier has approximate values of sterling for each decade as compared to today).
These are just the minimums. You get candidates presenting with multiple C1/B2 proficiency in three or four languages. UK candidates are pretty poor at this. Most reasonably diligent graduates from European universities will have English at B2/B1 but very few UK graduates have a second language at that level.
Having said that I intensively tutored a young Economics graduate for her Commission language test and she went from almost no knowledge of French (not even GCSE) to B2 in 8 months and got a position. So you can do it if you want it badly enough.