Brexit (Old)

[Angua]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The problems with PR are that you have weak government, nothing moves very fast and nobody gets the policies they voted for because there is a permanent coalition.

If you think recent governments have been in any way strong let alone stable, I would suspect you are living somewhere other than the UK.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Angua

If you think recent governments have been in any way strong let alone stable, I would suspect you are living somewhere other than the UK.

My point exactly. We have had coalition governments recently and they don't work very effectively.

Fortunately in the UK we normally get strong governments with a decent majority in Parliament.

The Blair and Thatcher governments are good examples of administrations with large majorities being able to get things done and make a real difference.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well, apparently you can only have one go, because circumstances never change...

I hope you're not defying the will of the people, Hugh.

---------- Post added at 20:33 ---------- Previous post was at 19:53 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

Is that not a United States of Europe?

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release...17-3165_en.htm

Good find. But the two points I raised - the UK would never agree to incorporation in a United States of Europe and that that is not on the agenda are not disproved by this.

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:33 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The problems with PR are that you have weak government, nothing moves very fast and nobody gets the policies they voted for because there is a permanent coalition.

Yes. Switzerland, Israel, Belgium and Denmark are all weak countries doing badly economically.

---------- Post added at 20:57 ---------- Previous post was at 20:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

BREAKING: Shadow Labour Chancellor, John McDonnell tells BBC Radio 4 today that a Second Referendum backed by Labour, will be about the terms of a deal, there will be no option to Remain in the EU, we respect the 2016 Referendum result to leave EU.

More confusion on this point today.

Sir Keir’s comments that “nobody is ruling out Remain as an option” was not in a draft of his speech sent to journalists as he stood up to speak to conference delegates, prompting speculation that he was deliberately defying the party leadership.
In a conference debate on the Brexit motion, Sir Keir was contradicted by Steve Turner, assistant general secretary of Unite, the trade union, who said Labour was only offering a “public vote on the terms of our departure” from the EU.
Labour is deeply split over Brexit, with many younger supporters in urban areas being enthusiastic Europhiles, while blue-collar backers in the party’s traditional heartlands back Leave.

https://www.ft.com/content/04aa7766-...5-54197280d3f7

[Sephiroth]

For the avoidance of doubt that Juncker is advocating centralised control, here is a small extract from his address (my italics):


A STRONGER UNION

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want our Union to be stronger and for this we need a stronger single market.
When it comes to important single market questions, I want decisions in the Council to be taken more often and more easily by qualified majority – with the equal involvement of the European Parliament. We do not need to change the Treaties for this. There are so-called “passerelle clauses” in the current Treaties which allow us to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in certain cases – provided the European Council decides unanimously to do so.

I am also strongly in favour of moving to qualified majority voting for decisions on the common consolidated corporate tax base, on VAT, on fair taxes for the digital industry and on the financial transaction tax.

Europe has to be able to act quicker and more decisively, and this also applies to the Economic and Monetary Union.

The euro area is more resilient now than in years past. We now have the European Stabilisation Mechanism (ESM). I believe the ESM should now progressively graduate into a European Monetary Fund which, however, must be firmly anchored in the European Union's rules and competences. The Commission will make concrete proposals for this in December.

We need a European Minister of Economy and Finance: a European Minister that promotes and supports structural reforms in our Member States. He or she can build on the work the Commission has been doing since 2015 with our Structural Reform Support Service. The new Minister should coordinate all EU financial instruments that can be deployed if a Member State is in a recession or hit by a fundamental crisis.
I am not calling for a new position just for the sake of it. I am calling for efficiency. The Commissioner for economic and financial affairs – ideally also a Vice-President – should assume the role of Economy and Finance Minister. He or she should also preside the Eurogroup.

The European Economy and Finance Minister must be accountable to the European Parliament.

…...

[djfunkdup]

185-days 2-Hrs 47-Min 10-Seconds .

Man it's getting close and already super excited. I'v got my Union Jack flags,socks,t-shirts,hoodys and all i'm waiting on now is me nan making me Union Jack pants and I'm all sorted .

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

For the avoidance of doubt that Juncker is advocating centralised control, here is a small extract from his address (my italics):

He may well be, but that's not in dispute. But is it on the EU agenda? Nope.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

He may well be, but that's not in dispute. But is it on the EU agenda? Nope.

A speech from the unelected president of the unelected EU Commission. Even if it was on the “agenda” and you didn’t agree with it. What powers as an electorate would you have to do anything about It!???????

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

He may well be, but that's not in dispute. But is it on the EU agenda? Nope.

Too easily dismissed. His predecessor, at the instigation of the French, got the WTD moved from unanimity to QMV so that British competitivity in the labour market could be reduced.

Furthermore, Pierre has itemised the history of the centralisation road.

Bit by bit, national powers will be eroded and given to the Brussels centre. The EU Parliament supports that.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

My point exactly. We have had coalition governments recently and they don't work very effectively.

Fortunately in the UK we normally get strong governments with a decent majority in Parliament.

The Blair and Thatcher governments are good examples of administrations with large majorities being able to get things done and make a real difference.

No, we have had coalitions of convenience. Not chosen by the positive PR vote, but by the negative "alternative is worse" voting that FPTP forces voters to make.

Over 64% of the votes cast at the last general election made no difference to the outcome. With PR those votes would actually make a positive difference because people could vote for what they genuinely want. It would teach politicians to negotiate and compromise, rather than dictate and destabilise.

FPTP only works in 2 party situations, it creates political parties that lack conviction. When one main side lurches one way, the other lurches in the opposite direction.

This is why we have ended up with remain leader May trying to negotiate to leave the EU, whilst also trying to keep all the people in her group together, when really they are pulling in different directions, undermining May at every turn.

Cameron started the whole issue with the EU referendum, in attempting to keep the Tories together by the will of the people vote. Sadly May then went to the electorate again, with a strange manifesto including things people really do not want

We are where we are, with a government that really is still not listening to the population, voted for out of fear of the alternative, but not by a sufficient majority of constituencies.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

A speech from the unelected president of the unelected EU Commission. Even if it was on the “agenda” and you didn’t agree with it. What powers as an electorate would you have to do anything about It!???????

Using your logic, the British PM is "unelected" and the Cabinet is also "unelected". Good to know ...

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2016/...d-bureaucrats/

And, in many ways, the way the Commission is now chosen is similar to the way the UK government is formed. Neither the British Prime Minister nor the British cabinet are ‘directly elected’. Formally, in House of Commons elections, we do not vote on the choice for the Prime Minister, but rather vote for individual MPs from different parties. Then, by convention, the Queen chooses the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to form a government. This is rather like the European Council choosing the candidate of the political group with the most seats in the European Parliament to become the Commission President.

Then, after the Prime Minister is chosen, he or she is free to choose his or her cabinet ministers. There are no hearings of individual ministerial nominees before committees of the House of Commons, and there is no formal investiture vote in the government as a whole. From this perspective, the Commissioners and the Commission are more scrutinised and more accountable than British cabinet ministers.

So, it is easy to claim that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’, but the reality is quite a long way from that. Although, having said that, I would be one of the first to acknowledge that the EU does not feel as democratic as it could or should be – as I have spent much of my academic career writing about this issue. But, this is perhaps more to do with the stage of development of the EU than because of the procedures that are now in place for choosing and removing the Commission, which are far more ‘democratic’ than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

Here's some bedtime reading for you:

The European Commission doesn’t make laws. It only makes proposals, which are then debated, amended and passed (or rejected) by elected national governments and directly-elected MEPs.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-...slative-powers

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by Angua

No, we have had coalitions of convenience. Not chosen by the positive PR vote, but by the negative "alternative is worse" voting that FPTP forces voters to make.

Over 64% of the votes cast at the last general election made no difference to the outcome. With PR those votes would actually make a positive difference because people could vote for what they genuinely want. It would teach politicians to negotiate and compromise, rather than dictate and destabilise.

FPTP only works in 2 party situations, it creates political parties that lack conviction. When one main side lurches one way, the other lurches in the opposite direction.

This is why we have ended up with remain leader May trying to negotiate to leave the EU, whilst also trying to keep all the people in her group together, when really they are pulling in different directions, undermining May at every turn.

Cameron started the whole issue with the EU referendum, in attempting to keep the Tories together by the will of the people vote. Sadly May then went to the electorate again, with a strange manifesto including things people really do not want

We are where we are, with a government that really is still not listening to the population, voted for out of fear of the alternative, but not by a sufficient majority of constituencies.

But I don't want to vote for a party, I want to elect my local MP.

And you can't say that n% of votes didn't count. They all did, they elected their local MP who (should) represent them.

Too much in Europe is divorced from the electorate. How can we affect outcomes individually against a wider majority if our representation is elected more widely? This isn't to say minority issues should overrule but they should be heard.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

But I don't want to vote for a party, I want to elect my local MP.

And you can't say that n% of votes didn't count. They all did, they elected their local MP who (should) represent them.

Too much in Europe is divorced from the electorate. How can we affect outcomes individually against a wider majority if our representation is elected more widely? This isn't to say minority issues should overrule but they should be heard.

But your local MP will only represent, in political terms, a part of his constituency. If your MP gets 55% of votes then 45% of the voters are not represented and their votes did not count.

The party affects your future far more than your local MP does so it makes no sense to vote for your local MP as an individual.

[Hom3r]

Well while Corbyn has the current anti Brexit stance and calling of a general election.

I will never vote Labour ever again.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Using your logic, the British PM is "unelected" and the Cabinet is also "unelected". Good to know ...

Nice try. Keep drinking the cool aid.

The Prime Minister and the cabinet are elected members of parliament

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2016/...d-bureaucrats/

from your link, thanks for researching it for me.

It is true that the Commission President and the individual Commissioners are not directly elected by the peoples of Europe. So, in that sense, we cannot “throw the scoundrels out”. It is also true that under the provisions of the EU treaty, the Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation, which, if passed, is then binding on all the EU member states and the citizens of these member states.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The Prime Minister and the cabinet are elected members of parliament

Nice try but no cigar.

MP's are elected to represent their constituencies and their party. They are not elected to become PM or to serve in Cabinet. You can even have the case of a MP becoming PM that did not lead the party and win the General Election.

If Boris becomes PM, no one voted for a Conservative Party led by Boris Johnson with the corresponding change in policy & direction that such a appointment would bring.