Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

SouthLondonUser

Tromking wrote: »

Why should the wider electorate have a say in what Tory leader gets elected?

I never said the entire electorate should have a say in who gets to be the next Tory leader.

I have, however, been saying that if a party leader changes for whatever reason, then it is my very humble opinion that the new leader should be subject to a vote of confidence in Parliament before becoming PM. Otherwise, what is the role of the supposedly sovereign Parliament in a supposedly parliamentary democracy???? Would you be opposed to that? If so, why?

The fact that the new PM is decided by the zero-point-nothing % of the population (whiter, richer, older, and more pro-Brexit than the British electorate as a whole) and won't even be subject to an automatic confidence vote is an abomination.

Tromking wrote: »

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.

Not exactly. A parliamentary democracy is not a system in which you vote for Parliament every 5 years - it is a system in which the executive derives its democratic legitimacy from the approval of Parliament. This is not what will be happening here, because the new PM will NOT be subject to an automatic confidence vote. Compared to this, any grievance on the indirect appointments in the EU is small beer, really!!!

Fran_Klee

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I never said the entire electorate should have a say in who gets to be the next Tory leader.

I have, however, been saying that if a party leader changes for whatever reason, then it is my very humble opinion that the new leader should be subject to a vote of confidence in Parliament before becoming PM. Otherwise, what is the role of the supposedly sovereign Parliament in a supposedly parliamentary democracy???? Would you be opposed to that? If so, why?

The fact that the new PM is decided by the zero-point-nothing % of the population (whiter, richer, older, and more pro-Brexit than the British electorate as a whole) and won't even be subject to an automatic confidence vote is an abomination.

Not exactly. A parliamentary democracy is not a system in which you vote for Parliament every 5 years - it is a system in which the executive derives its democratic legitimacy from the approval of Parliament. This is not what will be happening here, because the new PM will NOT be subject to an automatic confidence vote. Compared to this, any grievance on the indirect appointments in the EU is small beer, really!!!

That's quite ridiculous and TBH only goes to prove that you're living in an alternate reality, because without a hefty majority in the HoC the ruling party would never pass a vote of confidence because the merest whim of any opposition would scupper the vote.

At least your idea would guarantee no labour government for the foreseeable future though.

SouthLondonUser

Fran_Klee wrote: »

That's quite ridiculous and TBH only goes to prove that you're living in an alternate reality, because without a hefty majority in the HoC the ruling party would never pass a vote of confidence because the merest whim of any opposition would scupper the vote.

You can always count on random strangers on the internet to fill you in on the latest in comparative constitutional law, I see.

It's not clear to me what you are saying. Are you saying that a new PM has the confidence of Parliament implicitly, in the sense that otherwise the opposition would call a no-confidence vote? Maybe - but then what would be wrong in making this explicit, the way it is explicit in many (if not most) non-Anglosaxon parliamentary democracies?

If instead you are saying that the Tories have a razor-thin majority and might lose a confidence vote, well, that's one more reason to have the vote, to be honest - verifying if the PM really has the confidence of Parliament, which should supposedly be sovereign, and from which the legitimacy of the PM derives, in a supposedly parliamentary democracy...

adindas

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

You can always count on random strangers on the internet to fill you in on the latest in comparative constitutional law, I see.

It's not clear to me what you are saying. Are you saying that a new PM has the confidence of Parliament implicitly, in the sense that otherwise the opposition would call a no-confidence vote? Maybe - but then what would be wrong in making this explicit, the way it is explicit in many (if not most) non-Anglosaxon parliamentary democracies?

If instead you are saying that the Tories have a razor-thin majority and might lose a confidence vote, well, that's one more reason to have the vote, to be honest - verifying if the PM really has the confidence of Parliament, which should supposedly be sovereign, and from which the legitimacy of the PM derives, in a supposedly parliamentary democracy...

Mehh. an arch remoaner is preaching about democracy ...:cool2::cool2::cool2:

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I never said the entire electorate should have a say in who gets to be the next Tory leader.

I have, however, been saying that if a party leader changes for whatever reason, then it is my very humble opinion that the new leader should be subject to a vote of confidence in Parliament before becoming PM. Otherwise, what is the role of the supposedly sovereign Parliament in a supposedly parliamentary democracy???? Would you be opposed to that? If so, why?

The fact that the new PM is decided by the zero-point-nothing % of the population (whiter, richer, older, and more pro-Brexit than the British electorate as a whole) and won't even be subject to an automatic confidence vote is an abomination.

Not exactly. A parliamentary democracy is not a system in which you vote for Parliament every 5 years - it is a system in which the executive derives its democratic legitimacy from the approval of Parliament. This is not what will be happening here, because the new PM will NOT be subject to an automatic confidence vote. Compared to this, any grievance on the indirect appointments in the EU is small beer, really!!!

Sorry most of that is just not right.
You're trying to re-write our un-written constitution!
In the first instance the Queen invites the largest party to form a government, and the test for the legitimacy of that government is whether it can get its business done in the House.
Why the need for an initial confidence vote when the governing largest party and its parliamentary allies means it'll always win it. I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of a confidence vote and when it should be used.
Besides that, in a parliamentary democracy, confidence votes are not taken against PM's.

Enterprise_1701C

The simple fact is that, in this country, we vote for the PARTY rather than the PERSONALITY. Therefore the leader (in most cases) of the largest party at the time of the election becomes PM, assuming they are elected as MP, that leader can change any number of times whilst the PARTY remains in power. So technically that person has been elected by the people.

I believe Labour do not require their leader to be an MP, therefore not necessarily elected by the people. This means they could turn round and put Len Mcclusky into power, so we must NEVER allow this current bunch of Labour idiots into power

SouthLondonUser

Tromking wrote: »

Sorry most of that is just not right.
You're trying to re-write our un-written constitution!

Well, my whole point is that I disagree with the way the British un-written constitution works. I am not describing how it works, I am criticising it.

Tromking wrote: »

In the first instance the Queen invites the largest party to form a government, and the test for the legitimacy of that government is whether it can get its business done in the House.

Please clarify. There is no explicit mechanism whereby PMs must resign if they "cannot get their business done". How many times was May's deal defeated before she resigned? Even then, it wasn't automatic.

Tromking wrote: »

Why the need for an initial confidence vote when the governing largest party and its parliamentary allies means it'll always win it.

Why so sure? There may be MPs who may prefer a general election, You seem to be assuming that the MP of a party will always support the new leader of the party no matter what. That may not always be true. Especially in these extraordinary times, when a remainer Tory MP might prefer the idea of a general election to that of a hard Brexit.

Or maybe not, in which case not much will change - but then what's the problem with making a confidence vote explicit? You are saying it's redundant - well, if it really is, not much is lost by verifying that with an actual vote, no?

Tromking wrote: »

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of a confidence vote and when it should be used.

How so?

Tromking wrote: »

Besides that, in a parliamentary democracy, confidence votes are not taken against PM's.

Well, I believe that, technically, confidence votes verify the support of the government, not just of the PM, but I'd say we are splitting hairs

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/17/fanatical-von-der-leyen-final-nail-coffin-shambolic-eu-democracy/

Is this actually true?

She was selected by the European Council (leaders of all EU28) and then passed an approval vote by the European Parliament with 54% votes in favor out of the MEPs that attend.


Seems pretty fair and above board. That's (as I understand it) how a lot of publicly listed companies appoint CEOs), and presumably any claim by Brexiteers that 54% isn't a sufficient majority will result in an irony overload.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

Ok, then tell us. The UK remaining within a Customs Union and subject to ECJ rulings is entirely to the advantage of the EU. Why on earth would they ever release us from the backstop? They won’t even consider it being time limited which is pretty clear evidence that they won’t.

Why is it entirely to the advantage of the EU? We'd benefit from being in the CU, too.


They'd have to release us from the backstop once we satisfied the criteria we agreed on. If somehow they didn't, the ECJ would find in our favour or we could just tear it all up and walk away.


You seem to somehow think the EU is only out to screw us over, rather than purely to protect itself and knows fine well hurting us hurts them. You're by far the most anti-EU Remain voter I've ever encountered.

cogito wrote: »

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

Only if both sides honoured their part - the EU refusing to accept a solution that dissolves the backstop would invalidate the whole thing.

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?

Who's in the EC again?
What was stopping the MEPs voting against the EC candidate?


Does the UK Parliament get any say on Johnson becoming the PM next week?

gfplux

adindas wrote: »

Mehh. an arch remoaner is preaching about democracy ...:cool2::cool2::cool2:

And back at you with an arch quitling