Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

gfplux

On the ground, for ordinary people (on the Paris omnibus) the Euro is a great success. Not having to change or worry about currency when traveling in the Euro zone is wonderful.

Now economist will debate the good and bad of the Euro that is their right and their job. However on the ground for the ordinary European in the Euro zone it is a good thing. Talking of currency trades, benefits and the effect on jobs does not matter just as someone in the supply chain who voted for Brexit did not consider the wider consequences.

Just like the US Dollar is in the USA. I imagine lots of economists debated the good and bad of the US dollar back in the day. Perhaps in a few years/decades/centuries the debate will die down about the Euro as one side or the other is proved right.

adindas

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I asked you how
A) that it is in the UK's interest to Brexit
can possibly derive from
the opinion that the euro was a mistake.

The economist you quoted, for example, agrees with B but not with A.

That the people voted for it is not an answer. I didn't ask you if the people voted for it.
We all know that a slight majority voted for it 3 years ago; we also know that there were many irregularities in the campaign, many blatant lies, that much has changed since then, etc.

"People know, you also know that Brexit is the democratic mandate from people as the result of the referendum. It has also been ratified in the parliments".


The referendum which you also partake people have voted to leave the EU. Remainers have said a lot of rubbish scaremongering, UK will be the last on the queu, dooms day, it does not happen the result is that peopla have voted to leave the EU.

What is the cost of democracy ?? It is pricess. No money could buy. In the past the people sheded the blood to gain this. Talk a lot of rubbish scaremongaring but it will never be able to outweight the cost of democracy.


Because of the referendum it should no more question bout pro or contra, just to focus on how to deliver this mandate. Unless you could figure out something higher than the referendum, democracy.

SouthLondonUser

Tromking wrote: »

ie.
We don’t directly vote for Ministers or PM’s?
They are all drawn from MP’ s in Parliament.

Ehm, and how does this change the fact that the electorate has no say whatsoever in who gets to be Minister of what? Nor when a government is reshuffled or why?
Can you please explain? Or will you now shout back that I don't get to demand answers?

Tromking wrote: »

Here to help.

Me too

Tromking wrote: »

(This is painful BTW).

I was going to say the same!

SouthLondonUser

adindas wrote: »

"People know, you also know that Brexit is the democratic mandate from people as the result of the referendum. It has also been ratified in the parliments".

Still no answer, I see. To recap:

We should Brexit because the euro was a mistake
Why? One does not follow from the other. Even the economist you quoted doesn't agree with Brexit.
But there was a referendum!
Yes, but it still doesn't follow that Brexit will be good because the euro was a mistake!
But there was a referendum!

Always bring up "referendum" and "will of the people" when unable to answer an inconvenient question. Winning strategy.

westernpromise

As a matter of interest:

• who is our EU commission nominee?
• what is his manifesto?
• what were the alternative manifestoes defeated by him / her?
• when were the debates?
• where did he obtain his mandate?
• how do we vote him / her out? and
• why is he not Nigel Farage, leader of the party that won the EU elections in the UK?

adindas

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Still no answer, I see. To recap:

We should Brexit because the euro was a mistake
Why? One does not follow from the other. Even the economist you quoted doesn't agree with Brexit.
But there was a referendum!
Yes, but it still doesn't follow that Brexit will be good because the euro was a mistake!
But there was a referendum!

Always bring up "referendum" and "will of the people" when unable to answer an inconvenient question. Winning strategy.

You do not like when people use the word referendum and democracy. However, in the referenfum all arguments have been presented and looked at good or bad from both sides. People vote and the results is announced.

Once the result is announce that's it. Because it had been looked at there should not be any attempt to re-run the old argument whether it is good or bad. This had been looked at in the campaign before the people voted. Let alone UK have not left the EU. How could you show the result. Sofar it i just scaremongering whihc have been proven many got it wrong in the past.

What is the cost of democracy ?? It is pricess. No money could buy. In the past the people sheded the blood to gain this. Let alone a handful rubbish of scaremongaring of the short term impact to the UK economy. Say all of that scaremongering but one thing for sure it will never be able to outweight the cost of democracy.

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Ehm, and how does this change the fact that the electorate has no say whatsoever in who gets to be Minister of what? Nor when a government is reshuffled or why?
Can you please explain? Or will you now shout back that I don't get to demand answers?!

I’ve given you an answer, it appears you are not bright enough to understand it.
I know you think you’ve made some sort of rhetorical ‘slam dunk’, but you really haven’t.
Under our system the political legitimacy of our Government is not derived through the appointment of Ministers or PM’s. It’s comes from the election of an individual MP with a party political affiliation. These individuals stand on a clear political platform via a manifesto and the Government is formed from MP’s from the largest party.
Now you may say that our system of parliamentary democracy is rubbish and the EU’s system is way better. I disagree.

Arklight

Tromking wrote: »

I’ve given you an answer, it appears you are not bright enough to understand it.
I know you think you’ve made some sort of rhetorical ‘slam dunk’, but you really haven’t.
Under our system the political legitimacy of our Government is not derived through the appointment of Ministers or PM’s. It’s comes from the election of an individual MP with a party political affiliation. These individuals stand on a clear political platform via a manifesto and the Government is formed from MP’s from the largest party.
Now you may say that our system of parliamentary democracy is rubbish and the EU’s system is way better. I disagree.

Until you get the change UK lot deciding they don't want to have anything to do with the platform that they are elected on. And starting a new party that their constituents had no say in and probably don't want.

How is it fair that Chuka Umana's constituents are now Lib Dems?

How is it fair that most of the civil service is preselected from expensive fee paying schools before they've got near an exam paper? An organisation where "diversity" means interviewing a couple of Russell Group candidates who went to state school?

No political system is perfect, the UK's certainly isn't.

I agree that the EU needs more transparency, but pretending that following the British system will offer that is pure fantasy.

kingstreet

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Well, what do you mean by "represent"?

Do you mean that you can approach them? Eg if all the MEPs in your costituency are from Party A and you support Party B, can you contact a Party B MEP elected elsewhere?

What do I mean by represent? Good question. Let's call it having the interests of their constituents at heart and working for them.

No. Here in the West Mids, we have three BP MEPs, one Conservative, one Labour, one Green and one Lib Dem, so chances are one of them will match the voters in the constituency.

But let's say all seven are BP and I'm a Labour voter. Are those seven only there to represent those who voted for them, or for all their constituents?

SouthLondonUser

Tromking wrote: »

I’ve given you an answer, it appears you are not bright enough to understand it.

Personal insults are the last resort of the desperate...

Tromking wrote: »

I know you think you’ve made some sort of rhetorical ‘slam dunk’, but you really haven’t.
Under our system the political legitimacy of our Government is not derived through the appointment of Ministers or PM’s. It’s comes from the election of an individual MP with a party political affiliation. These individuals stand on a clear political platform via a manifesto and the Government is formed from MP’s from the largest party.

I asked you how any of what you said changes the fact that the British electorate has no say whatsoever in who gets to be Minister of what. Hint: it doesn't.
British Ministers get chosen (by the PM, not by the electorate) from the 650 MPs.
EU Commissioners are appointed by the Council (ie by national governments) and then voted by the European Parliament from a a broader pool; some EU Commissioners were MEPs or national MPs, but not all.

So let's see. Let's compare who makes the decisions. PM ( + implicitly the Parliament, in the sense that MPs can always vote for no confidence) vs national governments (the EU Council) + MEPs. Do you see a huge difference? I do not.

Let's compare the pool of potential candidates. British Ministers are chosen from MPs. EU Commissioners from a broader pool. Does this make the appointment of British Ministers much more direct? I can't see how, but, if you disagree and would be so kind as to explain...

Tromking wrote: »

Now you may say that our system of parliamentary democracy is rubbish and the EU’s system is way better. I disagree.

I never said 'rubbish'. I criticised very specific aspects of the British system.
Now you may tell me that a system in which a party with 55% of the votes can win 90ish% of the seats is fair. I don't think that; if you do, I'd love for you to elaborate on that.