Mr. Slackbladder, it's the natural friction caused by two diametrically opposing forces. The EU must integrate because it wants to take lots of decisions, and that requires (in an over-sized confederation of 27/28) national power to be eroded and aggregated instead to the centre. At the same time, democratic freedom requires that the electorates of nation states have the capacity to elect and hold accountable those who wield power over them.
The seeming answer would be to massively beef up the European Parliament. However, despite the wet dreams of bureaucratic buffoons you cannot simply wish away centuries of culture and identity. Not only that, freedom of action, to diverge or converge, is necessary for the flexibility required by the member states as their sizes, economies, cultures and demographics differ. Leaving aside that there is no European demos, the Parliament becoming powerful would simply lead to imposition of unwanted laws upon smaller nations that lack the representation to mount a parliamentary resistance.
It's almost as if trying to integrate 27/28 countries into a new country by stealth, deception, and bureaucratic trickery is a bloody stupid idea.
They have given us into the hand of new unhappy Lords Lords without honour or anger, who dare not carry their swords They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs Their doors are shut in the evenings; and they know no songs
Let’s hope so, the current boundaries are based on 2005 and so will be 17 years old by the next scheduled election.
Finally, so proper psephology we can all get our hands dirty with rather than squabbling over Brexit. Would the reduction to 600 seats imply going with the most recently proposed boundariesby the boundary commission? Or would it necessitate another review? If the latter, when could such a review be achieved by - the next election? Presumably it would have some bearing on the date of the next election - the Conservatives being less keen to go to the country until they have the new boundaries in place; other parties and individual MPs perhaps taking different views. Would it imply the large scale reselections that were being rumoured a year or so ago in the Labour Party? That all seems to have gone quiet now. It can't be taken for granted that the outcome will be favourable to the Conservative Party - as reviews have tended to be in the post-war period. The biggest population growth in recent years has been in Labour-friendly areas. I would expect both City of Manchester (not necessarily Greater Manchester) and City of Liverpool tobe looking at gaining seats if reviews are done on latest population figures (though of course both of those may include high student and/or other transient populations who may be less likely to be eligible to vote, or eligible to vote at that location if still registered elsewhere).
The review is underway and will report again shortly with a second draft of a 600-seat Parliament. The latest baseline is the 2016 register of electors, which (controversially for some) was just after the change to individual voter registration but before the EU referendum.
Putin and the kleptocrats are one and the same; Britain could end this vile nonsense at a stroke by freezing the squillions that the kleptocrats have stuffed in banks in the British Overseas territories. That would finish Putin off faster than any premier cru nerve gas. I am not quite sure why HMG are dithering around
This is excellent news. Is there any way the Lords can stop it?
The whole process needs to be restarted based on legitimate electoral registers.
I was asking a factual question, rather than for opinions.
I’m sure you’ll be even happier when we bring in proper voter ID, like Northern Ireland and the developed and developing worlds.
"This is excellent news" was your opinion. I was responding to that with an opinion of my own.
I don't have a problem with proper voter ID, as long as it doesn't disenfranchise voters.
I think everyone can agree that we should strive to ensure that all real voters are able to vote and that votes only come from individual, single, real voters.
Let’s hope so, the current boundaries are based on 2005 and so will be 17 years old by the next scheduled election.
Finally, so proper psephology we can all get our hands dirty with rather than squabbling over Brexit. Would the reduction to 600 seats imply going with the most recently proposed boundariesby the boundary commission? Or would it necessitate another review? If the latter, when could such a review be achieved by - the next election? Presumably it would have some bearing on the date of the next election - the Conservatives being less keen to go to the country until they have the new boundaries in place; other parties and individual MPs perhaps taking different views. Would it imply the large scale reselections that were being rumoured a year or so ago in the Labour Party? That all seems to have gone quiet now. It can't be taken for granted that the outcome will be favourable to the Conservative Party - as reviews have tended to be in the post-war period. The biggest population growth in recent years has been in Labour-friendly areas. I would expect both City of Manchester (not necessarily Greater Manchester) and City of Liverpool tobe looking at gaining seats if reviews are done on latest population figures (though of course both of those may include high student and/or other transient populations who may be less likely to be eligible to vote, or eligible to vote at that location if still registered elsewhere).
The review is underway and will report again shortly with a second draft of a 600-seat Parliament. The latest baseline is the 2016 register of electors, which (controversially for some) was just after the change to individual voter registration but before the EU referendum.
Let’s hope so, the current boundaries are based on 2005 and so will be 17 years old by the next scheduled election.
Finally, so proper psephology we can all get our hands dirty with rather than squabbling over Brexit. Would the reduction to 600 seats imply going with the most recently proposed boundariesby the boundary commission? Or would it necessitate another review? If the latter, when could such a review be achieved by - the next election? Presumably it would have some bearing on the date of the next election - the Conservatives being less keen to go to the country until they have the new boundaries in place; other parties and individual MPs perhaps taking different views. Would it imply the large scale reselections that were being rumoured a year or so ago in the Labour Party? That all seems to have gone quiet now. It can't be taken for granted that the outcome will be favourable to the Conservative Party - as reviews have tended to be in the post-war period. The biggest population growth in recent years has been in Labour-friendly areas. I would expect both City of Manchester (not necessarily Greater Manchester) and City of Liverpool tobe looking at gaining seats if reviews are done on latest population figures (though of course both of those may include high student and/or other transient populations who may be less likely to be eligible to vote, or eligible to vote at that location if still registered elsewhere).
The review is underway and will report again shortly with a second draft of a 600-seat Parliament. The latest baseline is the 2016 register of electors, which (controversially for some) was just after the change to individual voter registration but before the EU referendum.
Bit optimistic to think that proposals for a 600 seat commons will get through. Surely May's best bet is to leave the seat numbers unchanged, drop the silly 5% constituency size variation limit, and proceed with a conventional boundary review.
Plenty of nations are still in the EU but outside the Euro e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary etc and Ireland like us is outside Schengen
Ireland is only not in Schengen because we aren't and there is a border on the island of Ireland. If NI voted to join the Republic tomorrow, the Republic would be applying to join Schengen the day after.
Let’s hope so, the current boundaries are based on 2005 and so will be 17 years old by the next scheduled election.
Finally, so proper psephology we can all get our hands dirty with rather than squabbling over Brexit. Would the reduction to 600 seats imply going with the most recently proposed boundariesby the boundary commission? Or would it necessitate another review? If the latter, when could such a review be achieved by - the next election? Presumably it would have some bearing on the date of the next election - the Conservatives being less keen to go to the country until they have the new boundaries in place; other parties and individual MPs perhaps taking different views. Would it imply the large scale reselections that were being rumoured a year or so ago in the Labour Party? That all seems to have gone quiet now. It can't be taken for granted that the outcome will be favourable to the Conservative Party - as reviews have tended to be in the post-war period. The biggest population growth in recent years has been in Labour-friendly areas. I would expect both City of Manchester (not necessarily Greater Manchester) and City of Liverpool tobe looking at gaining seats if reviews are done on latest population figures (though of course both of those may include high student and/or other transient populations who may be less likely to be eligible to vote, or eligible to vote at that location if still registered elsewhere).
The review is underway and will report again shortly with a second draft of a 600-seat Parliament. The latest baseline is the 2016 register of electors, which (controversially for some) was just after the change to individual voter registration but before the EU referendum.
Bit optimistic to think that proposals for a 600 seat commons will get through. Surely May's best bet is to leave the seat numbers unchanged, drop the silly 5% constituency size variation limit, and proceed with a conventional boundary review.
But that involves restarting a process that’s been running for two years already. That process was running since the 2011 Act was passed but got voted down by the LDs in 2014 as they had a hissy fit over the HoL reforms.
Any changes now need a Parliamentary vote, the review will continue unless the HoC explicitly instructs them otherwise.
Don’t start me on the role of the HoC in their own constitution, IMO it should be delegated to the impartial Electoral Commission on a regular basis and Parliament should have to deal with it.
I wouldn't say the SNP losing power at Holyrood next time is guaranteed at all.
Their result last year, after all, was far better than the 2010 Westminster election, which itself was just a year before a landslide at Holyrood. My personal suspicion is that there are quite a lot of people in the Central Belt who are willing to vote for a Corbyn Westminster government, but will still prefer an SNP administration "standing up for Scotland" at home.
On present Holyrood polling there will be a Unionist majority at the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections though the SNP will hold the balance of power at Westminster on UK general election polls
Unless SCON & SLAB form a coalition we'd still have an SNP minority govt
So what, indyref2 talk would be dead for a generation if there was no longer an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood
So you think independence and a 2nd referendum is a live issue if there's an SNP & Green majority at Holyrood? Cool.
"Guido hears Number 10 are increasingly optimistic that they have the numbers to proceed with boundary reforms which would cut the number of MPs to 600 and reduce the electoral bias towards Labour"
Wait - what "electoral bias towards Labour"?
If you put in 42:42 for Con/Lab split and keep the rest the same, you get Con 298, Lab 286. Why is that "electoral bias towards Labour"?
Every cloud..... BREXIT has undermined support for the SNP rather than boosting backing for independence and made life harder for Nicola Sturgeon, the country’s leading pollster has said.
Professor Sir John Curtice said the SNP’s opposition to Brexit had alienated many Leave voters who had previously supported the party, and cost it dearly in votes.
Around a third of people who voted SNP in the 2016 Holyrood election went on to vote for Brexit a few weeks later, and many of those never returned to the SNP
Brexit has certainly done much to produce a Scottish Conservative revival, by making them the natural choice for Scots who are pro-Brexit and pro-Union.
The seats the Tories won in Scotland were from two different groups, the farming community fed up with the SNP's screw up of the EU farm payouts which not only affects the farmers themselves, but goes right on down the food chain via the suppliers to the coffee shop and pub in the village. The other group is the fishing community who don't like the pro-EU direction of SNP policy. The Tories will have greater difficulty in getting support in the leftist central belt where the bulk of the seats are.
Mr. Jessop, it could be argued, but that's not my view. I think the end of the EU is a question of decades, not centuries. To avoid the chance of a massive European war, I'd take the EU collapsing 20 years earlier every day of the week.
What 'chance of war'? The EU has helped keep peace in Europe, along with NATO, memories of the disasters of WWI and WW2 and other factors. Given that track record, surely it's good to want it to continue?
I could equally argue that a series of utterly independent, bickering, small and large states is what helped lead to WWI. And that's the model without the EU, rather than with it.
Comments
Lords without honour or anger, who dare not carry their swords
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs
Their doors are shut in the evenings; and they know no songs
I’m sure you’ll be even happier when we bring in proper voter ID, like Northern Ireland and the developed and developing worlds.
I don't have a problem with proper voter ID, as long as it doesn't disenfranchise voters.
https://twitter.com/Sandbach/status/971711150709551104
Any changes now need a Parliamentary vote, the review will continue unless the HoC explicitly instructs them otherwise.
Don’t start me on the role of the HoC in their own constitution, IMO it should be delegated to the impartial Electoral Commission on a regular basis and Parliament should have to deal with it.
NEW THREAD.
TRIGGER WARNING FOR SNOWFLAKE LEAVERS"Guido hears Number 10 are increasingly optimistic that they have the numbers to proceed with boundary reforms which would cut the number of MPs to 600 and reduce the electoral bias towards Labour"
Wait - what "electoral bias towards Labour"?
If you put in 42:42 for Con/Lab split and keep the rest the same, you get Con 298, Lab 286.
Why is that "electoral bias towards Labour"?