Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Sailtheworld

cogito wrote: »

Did you even read the article? It’s paywalled so my guess is that you didn’t in which case you probably don’t know that it was an opinion piece written by an MEP who was present throughout the process.

I didn't need to read it. I knew how the process worked and I knew how difficult it had been for Council to agree a candidate and I saw from the result how close the MEP vote was.

Also, you know exactly what you're getting with an opinion piece with that URL and written by a brexit party MEP. I just find this sort of bile a little predictable and childish. I certainly wouldn't pay for it.

It's preaching to the converted.

Tromking

Sailtheworld wrote: »

How can you expect politicians to listen when you say loud and clear 'I want the UK to leave the EU' but meant 'I'm not happy about how much money is spent on my kids education and my parent's care'.

I'm not one for making excuses for politicians but mind readers they ain't. It's absolutely one of the most ridiculously ineffective examples of lobbying I think I've ever come across.

Another one that doesn't understand the concept of a protest vote.
The fact that the 'left behind' narrative has been aired constantly since 2016, shows to me that the message sent in the referendum, now has political cachet and is beginning to resonate in the corridors of power.
That said, I recently found it amazing that some politicians and the MSM were shocked when a poll of Tory Party members showed that they would sacrifice the Union rather than give up on Brexit, clearly the message has not sunk in with all of the political class.
Politicians are well aware that Scots have several hundred pounds per capita more spent on them than the English and that England has borne the brunt of the now 10 year Austerity era.
I don't expect MP's to be mindreaders, I do however expect them to understand 'cause and effect' and have their ears to the ground in their constituencies as regards the hopes and fears of their electorate.

cogito

Sailtheworld wrote: »

I didn't need to read it. I knew how the process worked and I knew how difficult it had been for Council to agree a candidate and I saw from the result how close the MEP vote was.

Also, you know exactly what you're getting with an opinion piece with that URL and written by a brexit party MEP. I just find this sort of bile a little predictable and childish. I certainly wouldn't pay for it.

It's preaching to the converted.

So under the Spitzenkandidat system, MEPs put forward six candidates who are all rejected by the EC who then put forward their own candidate as the only choice. Is that your idea of democracy?

Sailtheworld

cogito wrote: »

It's more than just an agreement. It’s an international treaty which would survive until both parties agreed otherwise.

The decision to unilaterally withdraw from an international treaty is entirely political. Parliament is and remains sovereign.

If there's a clear cut case that the EU has acted in bad faith then there would be little impact on the UK's reputation.

SouthLondonUser

cogito wrote: »

So under the Spitzenkandidat system, MEPs put forward six candidates who are all rejected by the EC who then put forward their own candidate as the only choice. Is that your idea of democracy?

You are one of the many Brexiters who forgets that the Council is not a group of unelected bureaucrats, but it's the heads of governments of the member states!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Has this tiny piece of information ever been acknowledged by Brexiters, yes or no?

Basically what this recent appointment has shown is that the EU Council has proved more powerful in this occasion. Also, don't forget that MEPs had the option to reject the candidate - however, a majority of MEPs chose not to.

Now, we can debate all you like on whether the EU Council should have more or less power than the MEPs. What we cannot, however, do, is forget that the EU Council is made up of the heads of governments of member states and maybe imply it is in some way unelected undemocratic etc etc.

Also, I ask again: if this appointment upsets Brexiters so much, how do they/you react to the fact that an unrepresentative zero-point-nothing % of the British electorate is choosing the next British PM, who will not even have to go through a confidence vote? Please explain.

Sailtheworld

cogito wrote: »

So under the Spitzenkandidat system, MEPs put forward six candidates who are all rejected by the EC who then put forward their own candidate as the only choice. Is that your idea of democracy?

The national governments are responsible for choosing the candidates and aren't bound to choose any put forward by MEPs. MEPs, should they be so minded, vote against any candidate and send it back to Council.

So elected national governments lobbying for candidates who are confirmed by elected parliamentarians. Yes, that sounds like democracy to me. Perfect democracy? No - there's no such thing.

As with being instructed to assume bad faith I take assertions that the EU is undemocratic with a similar pinch of salt. I've got a bit more cynical these days and am more interested in why people say things rather than why they say them.

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Also, I ask again: if this appointment upsets Brexiters so much, how do they/you react to the fact that an unrepresentative zero-point-nothing % of the British electorate is choosing the next British PM, who will not even have to go through a confidence vote? Please explain.

Not this again.
The UK is a parliamentary democracy, we don't vote for the Executive. Its drawn from elected MP's of the largest party in Parliament.

Sailtheworld

Tromking wrote: »

The UK is a parliamentary democracy, we don't vote for the Executive. Its drawn from elected MP's of the largest party in Parliament.

We don't vote for anyone in the House of Lords or the Head of State either. I'd say the same thing as I'd say about the EU. Is it democracy? Yes. Is it perfect? No.

I don't get why brexiteers get so upset about the EU being undemocratic but are quite relaxed about the oddities of UK democracy. Probably because they say one thing and mean another.

SouthLondonUser

Tromking wrote: »

Not this again.
The UK is a parliamentary democracy, we don't vote for the Executive. Its drawn from elected MP's of the largest party in Parliament.

I am not saying the electorate should vote for the Prime Minister directly.

And it has certainly never occurred to me that we should vote for Ministers directly (although some Brexiters have advocated we should vote for EU Commissioners directly, which I think is a terrible idea).


I am saying that Parliament is so sovereign in our parliamentary democracy that it gets no say whatsoever in who gets to be the new PM. In Parliamentary democracies, the PM should be chosen by Parliament. In the UK it's not exactly like that, as current affairs are showing. At the very least, there should be an automatic confidence vote when the PM changes for whatever reason.

Also, I am curious: what do you think of the fact that the two candidates must appeal to a tiny and completely unrepresentative % of the population (registered Tory members)? If at least they were voted only by Tory MPs, the process would be less undemocratic and less dysfunctional.

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I am saying that Parliament is so sovereign in our parliamentary democracy that it gets no say whatsoever in who gets to be the new PM. In Parliamentary democracies, the PM should be chosen by Parliament. In the UK it's not exactly like that, as current affairs are showing. At the very least, there should be an automatic confidence vote when the PM changes for whatever reason.

Also, I am curious: what do you think of the fact that the two candidates must appeal to a tiny and completely unrepresentative % of the population (registered Tory members)? If at least they were voted only by Tory MPs, the process would be less undemocratic and less dysfunctional.

The current contest is to decide the leader of the Tory Party first and foremost. Although in this case the winner will become PM, its only because the Tory Party is the largest party in Parliament.
Why should the wider electorate have a say in what Tory leader gets elected? I usually (in normal times!) vote Labour why should I have a say in an internal Tory party matter.
The next opportunity I have to influence who the next PM is will be in the next general election. Thats what happens in parliamentary democracies, especially ones with a 5 year fixed term parliament.
The House of Lords is a democratic abomination and should go and as someone with republican leanings the Queen should not be our head of state. Although I do feel better that although the Queen has great power nominally, she has no way of exercising it.