The Gov'ts line is true here. The trade deals etc will be judged on aggregate by their effect on the economy, immigration, jobs etc. The general public don't give a stuff about the particulars of subsection 2.5 as to whether New Zealand Lamb has a non tariff barrier or not say.
I'd agree about New Zealand lamb, but I think the govt may struggle to keep discussions with Europe out of the news, especially as they've put in *another* very hard deadline, which means the No Deal arguments aren't dead.
"Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed the economy grew 0.4% in the third quarter of the year, better than a previous estimate of 0.3% and boosted by upward revisions to services and construction output.
The ONS said a surge in goods exports helped Britain’s current account deficit narrow to 15.860 billion pounds in the third quarter of 2019 from 24.152 billion pounds in the second quarter, roughly in line with expectations.
As a percentage of economic output, the deficit fell to 2.8%, its smallest since early 2012."
I never saw why allowing the WA would be particularly controversial for the opposition/Grievites, the bit where you actually want scrutiny is in the phase coming up - the trade agreements.
I never saw why allowing the WA would be particularly controversial for the opposition/Grievites, the bit where you actually want scrutiny is in the phase coming up - the trade agreements.
Oh hold on I do know why, it's because they were either thick as mince or ideologically wedded to the EU.
The thing is that one of the problems the Brexiteers have had is that they weren't very good. You can blame May if you like but who should she have chosen ahead of Johnson, Davis and Fox? It's too early to know whether the new intake has any more to offer in government.
The fact there is so much focus on Cummings says a lot. Don't forget he purposely kept MPs away from the vote leave campaign.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
Yes you are. You are represented by your constituency MP whether you voted for them or not.
And the European Parliament is not democratic. It lacks powers and can't undo actions of its predecessors without also getting through the European Council which you're not voting for other nations members of. The principle of no Parliament binding its successors is entirely violated by the EU abomination tearing up democracy.
I never saw why allowing the WA would be particularly controversial for the opposition/Grievites, the bit where you actually want scrutiny is in the phase coming up - the trade agreements.
Because they were being insincere when they said they would respect the referendum result.
I never saw why allowing the WA would be particularly controversial for the opposition/Grievites, the bit where you actually want scrutiny is in the phase coming up - the trade agreements.
The irony is that they've effectively wasted more than half of the time available fir the trade deal by dragging their heels on the bit that didn't matter.
A spectacular failure of both tactics and strategy.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
My vote in the 2019 EU elections caused a (very good) Green MEP to be elected, i.e. Ellie Chowns. In 45 years of adult life, my vote has only affected an election result this once and that's only because the EU insists on PR.
Is anyone else in the same position? It's dispiriting.
Is he claiming they fixed it to make it look closer for the Telegraph's readers? I doubt that very much.
I'm on the tablet so I can't check this, but I think the BPC website also did not include it, because it's not a BPC member. Happy to be contradicted if wrong.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
My vote in the 2019 EU elections caused a (very good) Green MEP to be elected, i.e. Ellie Chowns. In 45 years of adult life, my vote has only affected an election result this once and that's only because the EU insists on PR.
Is anyone else in the same position? It's dispiriting.
Did she win by one vote? Individual voters are rarely decisive.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
Yes you are. You are represented by your constituency MP whether you voted for them or not.
And the European Parliament is not democratic. It lacks powers and can't undo actions of its predecessors without also getting through the European Council which you're not voting for other nations members of. The principle of no Parliament binding its successors is entirely violated by the EU abomination tearing up democracy.
This argument only works if the United Kingdom is a single constituency and a single demos. It definitely isn't the former and hasn't been the latter for many years now
the total pleasure of not having to listen to that wanker Steve Bray spoiling every broadcast. I reckon he must have swung BoJo at ton of votes by himself.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
My vote in the 2019 EU elections caused a (very good) Green MEP to be elected, i.e. Ellie Chowns. In 45 years of adult life, my vote has only affected an election result this once and that's only because the EU insists on PR.
Is anyone else in the same position? It's dispiriting.
Did she win by one vote? Individual voters are rarely decisive.
And under D'Hondt with smallish numbers of members per constituency that's even more true. And even then it's not always in the right direction. You're more likely to accidentally swing the final seat away from a party you don't like as you are to move it towards one you do.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
Yes you are. You are represented by your constituency MP whether you voted for them or not.
And the European Parliament is not democratic. It lacks powers and can't undo actions of its predecessors without also getting through the European Council which you're not voting for other nations members of. The principle of no Parliament binding its successors is entirely violated by the EU abomination tearing up democracy.
This argument only works if the United Kingdom is a single constituency and a single demos. It definitely isn't the former and hasn't been the latter for many years now
My argument works because Parliament is the one that passes laws, not the haphazard mess of Parliament plus European Council via QMV plus unelected European Commission passing laws that exists in Europe.
Even if you consider the EU to be a single demos (and I patently don't) the path the EU takes is not decided at the European Elections. If eg the European Elections resulted in a majority saying to scrap the Common Agricultural Policy there is no guarantee that would happen if the European Council chooses to block that.
Our Parliament passes laws by itself. The European Parliament does not.
The thing is that one of the problems the Brexiteers have had is that they weren't very good. You can blame May if you like but who should she have chosen ahead of Johnson, Davis and Fox? It's too early to know whether the new intake has any more to offer in government.
The fact there is so much focus on Cummings says a lot. Don't forget he purposely kept MPs away from the vote leave campaign.
The thing is that one of the problems the Brexiteers have had is that they weren't very good. You can blame May if you like but who should she have chosen ahead of Johnson, Davis and Fox? It's too early to know whether the new intake has any more to offer in government.
The fact there is so much focus on Cummings says a lot. Don't forget he purposely kept MPs away from the vote leave campaign.
and your arguments means that if the Brexiteers were crap the Remainers must be crap squared. They were outwitted by morons .
The government are right, politically at least, steering public discourse away from Brexit. A big part of the electorate would be happy if that word is never ever mentioned again. They want it done and want to leave the boring details for the geeks to figure out.
I know that will enrage many on here. But it's the truth.
Cummings must have been lying on the floor listening to the nation again.
The thing is that one of the problems the Brexiteers have had is that they weren't very good. You can blame May if you like but who should she have chosen ahead of Johnson, Davis and Fox? It's too early to know whether the new intake has any more to offer in government.
The fact there is so much focus on Cummings says a lot. Don't forget he purposely kept MPs away from the vote leave campaign.
The issue with May's government is not that Johnson, Davis and Fox did a bad job.
The issue with May's government is that May sidelined her Cabinet and took on the negotiations with her sherpa and did a terrible job herself. And she was not a leaver.
Once Johnson became PM and took over negotiations himself it was job done with a far superior deal.
Nobody for one second under Johnson suggests that this was Steve Barclays deal afterall. For a very good reason.
The thing is that one of the problems the Brexiteers have had is that they weren't very good. You can blame May if you like but who should she have chosen ahead of Johnson, Davis and Fox? It's too early to know whether the new intake has any more to offer in government.
The fact there is so much focus on Cummings says a lot. Don't forget he purposely kept MPs away from the vote leave campaign.
The thing is that one of the problems the Brexiteers have had is that they weren't very good. You can blame May if you like but who should she have chosen ahead of Johnson, Davis and Fox? It's too early to know whether the new intake has any more to offer in government.
The fact there is so much focus on Cummings says a lot. Don't forget he purposely kept MPs away from the vote leave campaign.
and your arguments means that if the Brexiteers were crap the Remainers must be crap squared. They were outwitted by morons .
And a bus.
That's how bad they were.
I'm talking about governing.
The problem was there was no majority in parliament. For anything. The Brexiteers offered a majority for something. Too many MPs didn't see the danger of parliament turning into a talking shop of no consequence.
That doesn't get away from the fact that hardly any Brexiteers have shown themselves to be ministerially competent. Barnier with Davis, looking like the university don reasoning with a rather dim undergraduate, Raab not knowing the significance of Dover, Patel and her clandestine meetings with a foreign government. The eternal fantasies of Liam Fox and Boris's own time at the FCO when he achieved? What?
There's no doubt the remainers ought to hang their heads in shame that they lost to this shower but that doesn't make them any less of a shower.
I never saw why allowing the WA would be particularly controversial for the opposition/Grievites, the bit where you actually want scrutiny is in the phase coming up - the trade agreements.
Oh hold on I do know why, it's because they were either thick as mince or ideologically wedded to the EU.
It was because they were trying to remain. If the election had produced a hung parliament they would have had a high chance of succeeding. The remain caravan has now moved on and will land on other issues soon.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
Yes you are. You are represented by your constituency MP whether you voted for them or not.
And the European Parliament is not democratic. It lacks powers and can't undo actions of its predecessors without also getting through the European Council which you're not voting for other nations members of. The principle of no Parliament binding its successors is entirely violated by the EU abomination tearing up democracy.
This argument only works if the United Kingdom is a single constituency and a single demos. It definitely isn't the former and hasn't been the latter for many years now
Fear not, we've reached the point where PBers approvingly highlight right wing historians suggesting that governments encourage schools to teach a British identity. The one nation BJ party, coming soon to a classroom of six year olds near you.
I never saw why allowing the WA would be particularly controversial for the opposition/Grievites, the bit where you actually want scrutiny is in the phase coming up - the trade agreements.
Oh hold on I do know why, it's because they were either thick as mince or ideologically wedded to the EU.
It was because they were trying to remain. If the election had produced a hung parliament they would have had a high chance of succeeding. The remain caravan has now moved on and will land on other issues soon.
The problem is they kept drinking their own kool aid.
Remainers were convinced of their own virtue and always thought the public would bow down to their superior views. But two things were always true.
1: Bringing down Theresa May was always likely to see a harder Leaver replace her in the Conservative Party. 2: Leave constituencies outnumbered Remain Constituencies at the referendum by almost 2 to 1.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
Yes you are. You are represented by your constituency MP whether you voted for them or not.
And the European Parliament is not democratic. It lacks powers and can't undo actions of its predecessors without also getting through the European Council which you're not voting for other nations members of. The principle of no Parliament binding its successors is entirely violated by the EU abomination tearing up democracy.
This argument only works if the United Kingdom is a single constituency and a single demos. It definitely isn't the former and hasn't been the latter for many years now
My argument works because Parliament is the one that passes laws, not the haphazard mess of Parliament plus European Council via QMV plus unelected European Commission passing laws that exists in Europe.
Even if you consider the EU to be a single demos (and I patently don't) the path the EU takes is not decided at the European Elections. If eg the European Elections resulted in a majority saying to scrap the Common Agricultural Policy there is no guarantee that would happen if the European Council chooses to block that.
Our Parliament passes laws by itself. The European Parliament does not.
But we don't have a vote for "parliament". We have a vote for "the house of commons". The other components: the executive (in Whitehall), the house of lords (other part of the building) and the crown are also components of vote-passing and are unelected.
The thing is that one of the problems the Brexiteers have had is that they weren't very good. You can blame May if you like but who should she have chosen ahead of Johnson, Davis and Fox? It's too early to know whether the new intake has any more to offer in government.
The fact there is so much focus on Cummings says a lot. Don't forget he purposely kept MPs away from the vote leave campaign.
The thing is that one of the problems the Brexiteers have had is that they weren't very good. You can blame May if you like but who should she have chosen ahead of Johnson, Davis and Fox? It's too early to know whether the new intake has any more to offer in government.
The fact there is so much focus on Cummings says a lot. Don't forget he purposely kept MPs away from the vote leave campaign.
and your arguments means that if the Brexiteers were crap the Remainers must be crap squared. They were outwitted by morons .
And a bus.
That's how bad they were.
I think that is a very accurate analysis. And one that should be more widely understood.
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
Yes you are. You are represented by your constituency MP whether you voted for them or not.
And the European Parliament is not democratic. It lacks powers and can't undo actions of its predecessors without also getting through the European Council which you're not voting for other nations members of. The principle of no Parliament binding its successors is entirely violated by the EU abomination tearing up democracy.
This argument only works if the United Kingdom is a single constituency and a single demos. It definitely isn't the former and hasn't been the latter for many years now
My argument works because Parliament is the one that passes laws, not the haphazard mess of Parliament plus European Council via QMV plus unelected European Commission passing laws that exists in Europe.
Even if you consider the EU to be a single demos (and I patently don't) the path the EU takes is not decided at the European Elections. If eg the European Elections resulted in a majority saying to scrap the Common Agricultural Policy there is no guarantee that would happen if the European Council chooses to block that.
Our Parliament passes laws by itself. The European Parliament does not.
But we don't have a vote for "parliament". We have a vote for "the house of commons". The other components: the executive (in Whitehall), the house of lords (other part of the building) and the crown are also components of vote-passing and are unelected.
(Am on the tablet hence lower-case: apols)
Yes but our elected House is supreme. The executive is chosen by the legislature we elected. The House of Lords can be overriden by the Commons because of the Parliament Act. The Crown doesn't interfere in politics. So yes if our House of Commons is elected with a mandate to do something, and a majority of that House of Commons insists upon getting it done and picking an executive who will get it done, then it is done.
The European Elections don't work the same way. The European Parliament is not supreme. That is why the European Union is undemocratic.
I never saw why allowing the WA would be particularly controversial for the opposition/Grievites, the bit where you actually want scrutiny is in the phase coming up - the trade agreements.
Oh hold on I do know why, it's because they were either thick as mince or ideologically wedded to the EU.
It was because they were trying to remain. If the election had produced a hung parliament they would have had a high chance of succeeding. The remain caravan has now moved on and will land on other issues soon.
The problem is they kept drinking their own kool aid.
Remainers were convinced of their own virtue and always thought the public would bow down to their superior views. But two things were always true.
1: Bringing down Theresa May was always likely to see a harder Leaver replace her in the Conservative Party. 2: Leave constituencies outnumbered Remain Constituencies at the referendum by almost 2 to 1.
Given the fact that I pointed out point 1 AT THE TIME I'd be grateful if you'd modify that to *some* Remainers.
I never saw why allowing the WA would be particularly controversial for the opposition/Grievites, the bit where you actually want scrutiny is in the phase coming up - the trade agreements.
Oh hold on I do know why, it's because they were either thick as mince or ideologically wedded to the EU.
It was because they were trying to remain. If the election had produced a hung parliament they would have had a high chance of succeeding. The remain caravan has now moved on and will land on other issues soon.
The problem is they kept drinking their own kool aid.
Remainers were convinced of their own virtue and always thought the public would bow down to their superior views. But two things were always true.
1: Bringing down Theresa May was always likely to see a harder Leaver replace her in the Conservative Party. 2: Leave constituencies outnumbered Remain Constituencies at the referendum by almost 2 to 1.
Given the fact that I pointed out point 1 AT THE TIME I'd be grateful if you'd modify that to *some* Remainers.
I'm referring to the MPs like Grieve and Soubry and co not your good self. Sorry for the confusion.
I never saw why allowing the WA would be particularly controversial for the opposition/Grievites, the bit where you actually want scrutiny is in the phase coming up - the trade agreements.
Oh hold on I do know why, it's because they were either thick as mince or ideologically wedded to the EU.
It was because they were trying to remain. If the election had produced a hung parliament they would have had a high chance of succeeding. The remain caravan has now moved on and will land on other issues soon.
The problem is they kept drinking their own kool aid.
Remainers were convinced of their own virtue and always thought the public would bow down to their superior views. But two things were always true.
1: Bringing down Theresa May was always likely to see a harder Leaver replace her in the Conservative Party. 2: Leave constituencies outnumbered Remain Constituencies at the referendum by almost 2 to 1.
Given the fact that I pointed out point 1 AT THE TIME I'd be grateful if you'd modify that to *some* Remainers.
I'm referring to the MPs like Grieve and Soubry and co not your good self. Sorry for the confusion.
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
Yes you are. You are represented by your constituency MP whether you voted for them or not.
And the European Parliament is not democratic. It lacks powers and can't undo actions of its predecessors without also getting through the European Council which you're not voting for other nations members of. The principle of no Parliament binding its successors is entirely violated by the EU abomination tearing up democracy.
This argument only works if the United Kingdom is a single constituency and a single demos. It definitely isn't the former and hasn't been the latter for many years now
My argument works because Parliament is the one that passes laws, not the haphazard mess of Parliament plus European Council via QMV plus unelected European Commission passing laws that exists in Europe.
Even if you consider the EU to be a single demos (and I patently don't) the path the EU takes is not decided at the European Elections. If eg the European Elections resulted in a majority saying to scrap the Common Agricultural Policy there is no guarantee that would happen if the European Council chooses to block that.
Our Parliament passes laws by itself. The European Parliament does not.
But we don't have a vote for "parliament". We have a vote for "the house of commons". The other components: the executive (in Whitehall), the house of lords (other part of the building) and the crown are also components of vote-passing and are unelected.
(Am on the tablet hence lower-case: apols)
Yes but our elected House is supreme. The executive is chosen by the legislature we elected. The House of Lords can be overriden by the Commons because of the Parliament Act. The Crown doesn't interfere in politics. So yes if our House of Commons is elected with a mandate to do something, and a majority of that House of Commons insists upon getting it done and picking an executive who will get it done, then it is done.
The European Elections don't work the same way. The European Parliament is not supreme. That is why the European Union is undemocratic.
You obviously didn’t notice the vote on the European executive in the European Parliament. It came within a whisker of being rejected.
Your ignorance is matched only by your unjustified confidence.
You obviously didn’t notice the vote on the European executive in the European Parliament. It came within a whisker of being rejected.
Your ignorance is matched only by your unjustified confidence.
I did notice it. I didn't respect it. At our election we knew that Johnson and Corbyn were being proposed as Prime Ministerial candidates and whether you like it or not the results meant Johnson won. Who proposed von der Leyen at the European Elections.
However even that makes no difference to my point. The European Parliament is not supreme in Europe. It can't override the European Council can it?
Even if you believe in a European demos, the European Elections don't determine what laws get passed and how.
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
Yes you are. You are represented by your constituency MP whether you voted for them or not.
And the European Parliament is not democratic. It lacks powers and can't undo actions of its predecessors without also getting through the European Council which you're not voting for other nations members of. The principle of no Parliament binding its successors is entirely violated by the EU abomination tearing up democracy.
This argument only works if the United Kingdom is a single constituency and a single demos. It definitely isn't the former and hasn't been the latter for many years now
My argument works because Parliament is the one that passes laws, not the haphazard mess of Parliament plus European Council via QMV plus unelected European Commission passing laws that exists in Europe.
Even if you consider the EU to be a single demos (and I patently don't) the path the EU takes is not decided at the European Elections. If eg the European Elections resulted in a majority saying to scrap the Common Agricultural Policy there is no guarantee that would happen if the European Council chooses to block that.
Our Parliament passes laws by itself. The European Parliament does not.
But we don't have a vote for "parliament". We have a vote for "the house of commons". The other components: the executive (in Whitehall), the house of lords (other part of the building) and the crown are also components of vote-passing and are unelected.
(Am on the tablet hence lower-case: apols)
Yes but our elected House is supreme. The executive is chosen by the legislature we elected. The House of Lords can be overriden by the Commons because of the Parliament Act. The Crown doesn't interfere in politics. So yes if our House of Commons is elected with a mandate to do something, and a majority of that House of Commons insists upon getting it done and picking an executive who will get it done, then it is done.
The European Elections don't work the same way. The European Parliament is not supreme. That is why the European Union is undemocratic.
You obviously didn’t notice the vote on the European executive in the European Parliament. It came within a whisker of being rejected.
Your ignorance is matched only by your unjustified confidence.
"the vote on the European executive in the European Parliament came within a whisker of being rejected" = it looked close, but we still got our way. Never in doubt.....
You obviously didn’t notice the vote on the European executive in the European Parliament. It came within a whisker of being rejected.
Your ignorance is matched only by your unjustified confidence.
I did notice it. I didn't respect it. At our election we knew that Johnson and Corbyn were being proposed as Prime Ministerial candidates and whether you like it or not the results meant Johnson won. Who proposed von der Leyen at the European Elections.
However even that makes no difference to my point. The European Parliament is not supreme in Europe. It can't override the European Council can it?
Even if you believe in a European demos, the European Elections don't determine what laws get passed and how.
Boris Johnson was chosen by an extra-Parliamentary method. His choice was never even voted on by Parliament. He was by a considerable order of magnitude less democratically selected than the European Commission.
You obviously didn’t notice the vote on the European executive in the European Parliament. It came within a whisker of being rejected.
Your ignorance is matched only by your unjustified confidence.
I did notice it. I didn't respect it. At our election we knew that Johnson and Corbyn were being proposed as Prime Ministerial candidates and whether you like it or not the results meant Johnson won. Who proposed von der Leyen at the European Elections.
However even that makes no difference to my point. The European Parliament is not supreme in Europe. It can't override the European Council can it?
Even if you believe in a European demos, the European Elections don't determine what laws get passed and how.
Boris Johnson was chosen by an extra-Parliamentary method. His choice was never even voted on by Parliament. He was by a considerable order of magnitude less democratically selected than the European Commission.
Your analysis only stands up to scrutiny if the European executive were to put themselves forward for the democratic rubber stamping by the voters that Boris has just undergone.
You obviously didn’t notice the vote on the European executive in the European Parliament. It came within a whisker of being rejected.
Your ignorance is matched only by your unjustified confidence.
I did notice it. I didn't respect it. At our election we knew that Johnson and Corbyn were being proposed as Prime Ministerial candidates and whether you like it or not the results meant Johnson won. Who proposed von der Leyen at the European Elections.
However even that makes no difference to my point. The European Parliament is not supreme in Europe. It can't override the European Council can it?
Even if you believe in a European demos, the European Elections don't determine what laws get passed and how.
Boris Johnson was chosen by an extra-Parliamentary method. His choice was never even voted on by Parliament. He was by a considerable order of magnitude less democratically selected than the European Commission.
You obviously didn’t notice the vote on the European executive in the European Parliament. It came within a whisker of being rejected.
Your ignorance is matched only by your unjustified confidence.
I did notice it. I didn't respect it. At our election we knew that Johnson and Corbyn were being proposed as Prime Ministerial candidates and whether you like it or not the results meant Johnson won. Who proposed von der Leyen at the European Elections.
However even that makes no difference to my point. The European Parliament is not supreme in Europe. It can't override the European Council can it?
Even if you believe in a European demos, the European Elections don't determine what laws get passed and how.
Boris Johnson was chosen by an extra-Parliamentary method. His choice was never even voted on by Parliament. He was by a considerable order of magnitude less democratically selected than the European Commission.
That is not only patently ludicrous once again ignores my point.
How does the European Council not the European Commission get chosen by the European Elections? If there is a European demos then European laws should get chosen by European Elections - which European Election chooses the Council?
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
My vote in the 2019 EU elections caused a (very good) Green MEP to be elected, i.e. Ellie Chowns. In 45 years of adult life, my vote has only affected an election result this once and that's only because the EU insists on PR.
Is anyone else in the same position? It's dispiriting.
Did she win by one vote? Individual voters are rarely decisive.
And under D'Hondt with smallish numbers of members per constituency that's even more true. And even then it's not always in the right direction. You're more likely to accidentally swing the final seat away from a party you don't like as you are to move it towards one you do.
Very well then, by all means use a more proportional system.
Her share of the vote, maybe 12%, got her that percent of W.Mids seats. Because it passed the threshold, she got elected. In a Westminster seat, anything under 40-50% is usually a wasted vote.
It appears that the UK actually used to have some multi-member constituencies, the last being abolished in ~1950.
In the UK: Parliament is 1 step from the electorate, it is directly elected. Boris Johnson as Prime Minister is 1-2 steps removed from the electorate. He is directly elected as MP, then chosen by the MPs to be PM. To pass a law only the directly elected House has to vote in favour (as shown with the Benn Act).
In the EU. The European Parliament is 1 step from the electorate, it is directly elected. The European Council 3 steps from the electorate. Voters choose MPs, who choose PMs, who sit together internationally. The European Commission is chosen by voters choosing MPs, who choose PMs, who sit together internationally, who nominate a Commission President, who gets ratified by MEPs. And to pass a law all these institutions must approve. There can be no Benn Act passed by the Parliament alone.
If you think that's democratic, there's so many degrees of separation there we may as well just make Kevin Bacon dictator for life and call it democracy.
Why are people persuaded that Boris and his crew will make good their promise to get us out of the EU anyway? Last time we had a General Election, Soubry, Heidi Allen, Chuka etc all made the same pre election pledge, and campaigned to reverse the referendum result.
I guess people view Boris as more trustworthy than Soubry & co.
How damning is that!
And that's why Corbyn looked like he was chewing tacks. His brand of socialism utterly rejected but he still did not change the record in the HOC yesterday.
Perhaps this is wrong but it seems to me that the Union is voluntary in the sense that 'theft being a crime' is voluntary. Both are statutory, and were undertaken voluntarily in our name by the relevant supreme authority at the time.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
In the UK: Parliament is 1 step from the electorate, it is directly elected. Boris Johnson as Prime Minister is 1-2 steps removed from the electorate. He is directly elected as MP, then chosen by the MPs to be PM. To pass a law only the directly elected House has to vote in favour (as shown with the Benn Act).
In the EU. The European Parliament is 1 step from the electorate, it is directly elected. The European Council 3 steps from the electorate. Voters choose MPs, who choose PMs, who sit together internationally. The European Commission is chosen by voters choosing MPs, who choose PMs, who sit together internationally, who nominate a Commission President, who gets ratified by MEPs. And to pass a law all these institutions must approve. There can be no Benn Act passed by the Parliament alone.
If you think that's democratic, there's so many degrees of separation there we may as well just make Kevin Bacon dictator for life and call it democracy.
In the UK we have people sitting in the upper house who are there because one of their ancestors was one of some long forgotten King's bastards, or they knew Lloyd George. We have a head of State who is hereditary with popularity, but no democratic legitimacy. We have huge amounts of legislation passed by statutory instrument. We have a system of constituencies that are arbitrary, inconsistent and often unrepresentative of any logic. We have a devolutionary settlement that is unbalanced and lacking in principles of equity across the union. We have a government that has untrammelled power to dictate to a majority of the population that did not vote for it.
Basically our constitutional settlement is a mess. It is only vaguely democratic. Brexiteers who ignorantly and arrogantly try to pontificate to other Europeans on democracy are only further demonstrating their very limited understanding and intellectual capacity.
Perhaps this is wrong but it seems to me that the Union is voluntary in the sense that 'theft being a crime' is voluntary. Both are statutory, and were undertaken voluntarily in our name by the relevant supreme authority at the time.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
The problem is they kept drinking their own kool aid.
Remainers were convinced of their own virtue and always thought the public would bow down to their superior views. But two things were always true.
1: Bringing down Theresa May was always likely to see a harder Leaver replace her in the Conservative Party. 2: Leave constituencies outnumbered Remain Constituencies at the referendum by almost 2 to 1.
Point (2) is absolutely key. As regards England it's even more pronounced. The 2016 Referendum was a landslide under FPTP.
Given this, and given Johnson's success in consolidating the Leave vote behind him to "Get Brexit Done", the simple fact of the matter is that this GE was a slam dunk for the Cons. It was only ever a question of the size of the majority. And this is not hindsight. It was clear to me right from the outset and I posted accordingly.
All the talk about "Corbyn" misses this essential point. Sure, with a different leader and policies Labour might have restricted the majority to, say, 50. Perhaps even to 30. But that was the upper limit of what was feasible.
Perhaps this is wrong but it seems to me that the Union is voluntary in the sense that 'theft being a crime' is voluntary. Both are statutory, and were undertaken voluntarily in our name by the relevant supreme authority at the time.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
The 2014 referendum saw Scots vote to stay in the UK so UK elections are exactly that, the next Scottish election is for Holyrood in 2021
Fratelli d'Italia gaining support in the latest Italian polls. Now clearly ahead of Forza.
I haven't done any research on Italy, when is their election and is Forza the one Belushsconi was the leader of?
Would that make them left or right wing?
Forza and Fratelli are coalition partners with Lega, Forza being Berlusconi's party.
The next general election is not due to 2023 but the fragile nature of the ruling M5* and PD coalition means it could be earlier, especially if Salvini does well in regional polls next year.
Latest poll Lega 31%, PD 19%, M5S 16.4%, Fratelli 10.6%, FI 5.8%
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
In the UK: Parliament is 1 step from the electorate, it is directly elected. Boris Johnson as Prime Minister is 1-2 steps removed from the electorate. He is directly elected as MP, then chosen by the MPs to be PM. To pass a law only the directly elected House has to vote in favour (as shown with the Benn Act).
In the EU. The European Parliament is 1 step from the electorate, it is directly elected. The European Council 3 steps from the electorate. Voters choose MPs, who choose PMs, who sit together internationally. The European Commission is chosen by voters choosing MPs, who choose PMs, who sit together internationally, who nominate a Commission President, who gets ratified by MEPs. And to pass a law all these institutions must approve. There can be no Benn Act passed by the Parliament alone.
If you think that's democratic, there's so many degrees of separation there we may as well just make Kevin Bacon dictator for life and call it democracy.
In the UK we have people sitting in the upper house who are there because one of their ancestors was one of some long forgotten King's bastards, or they knew Lloyd George. We have a head of State who is hereditary with popularity, but no democratic legitimacy. We have huge amounts of legislation passed by statutory instrument. We have a system of constituencies that are arbitrary, inconsistent and often unrepresentative of any logic. We have a devolutionary settlement that is unbalanced and lacking in principles of equity across the union. We have a government that has untrammelled power to dictate to a majority of the population that did not vote for it.
Basically our constitutional settlement is a mess. It is only vaguely democratic. Brexiteers who ignorantly and arrogantly try to pontificate to other Europeans on democracy are only further demonstrating their very limited understanding and intellectual capacity.
How does the European Council not the European Commission get chosen by the European Elections? If there is a European demos then European laws should get chosen by European Elections - which European Election chooses the Council?
The individual elections in each country produce the democratic representation on the Council (some rather more democratic than others, he says enviously looking at literally every other country in the 28). And it's been your lot that have refused to give more power to the European Parliament and to retain it on the Council (although the parliament has rejected commissioners which is a damn sight more than we get to do with the cabinet here), and now you complain that the parliament lacks power...
Fratelli d'Italia gaining support in the latest Italian polls. Now clearly ahead of Forza.
I haven't done any research on Italy, when is their election and is Forza the one Belushsconi was the leader of?
Would that make them left or right wing?
Forza and Fratelli are coalition partners with Lega, Forza being Berlusconi's party.
The next general election is not due to 2023 but the fragile nature of the ruling M5* and PD coalition means it could be earlier, especially if Salvini does well in regional polls next year.
Latest poll Lega 31%, PD 19%, M5S 16.4%, Fratelli 10.6%, FI 5.8%
Perhaps this is wrong but it seems to me that the Union is voluntary in the sense that 'theft being a crime' is voluntary. Both are statutory, and were undertaken voluntarily in our name by the relevant supreme authority at the time.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
The 2014 referendum saw Scots vote to stay in the UK so UK elections are exactly that, the next Scottish election is for Holyrood in 2021
Using your massive expertise in matters Jockish, can you explain why every single atom of the Scottish Conservative UK General Election campaign was aimed at asking people to vote for them to stop Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish msp, leader of a Scotland only party and FM of Scotland) and say no to a second Scottish indy referendum?
In the UK: Parliament is 1 step from the electorate, it is directly elected. Boris Johnson as Prime Minister is 1-2 steps removed from the electorate. He is directly elected as MP, then chosen by the MPs to be PM. To pass a law only the directly elected House has to vote in favour (as shown with the Benn Act).
In the EU. The European Parliament is 1 step from the electorate, it is directly elected. The European Council 3 steps from the electorate. Voters choose MPs, who choose PMs, who sit together internationally. The European Commission is chosen by voters choosing MPs, who choose PMs, who sit together internationally, who nominate a Commission President, who gets ratified by MEPs. And to pass a law all these institutions must approve. There can be no Benn Act passed by the Parliament alone.
If you think that's democratic, there's so many degrees of separation there we may as well just make Kevin Bacon dictator for life and call it democracy.
In the UK we have people sitting in the upper house who are there because one of their ancestors was one of some long forgotten King's bastards, or they knew Lloyd George. We have a head of State who is hereditary with popularity, but no democratic legitimacy. We have huge amounts of legislation passed by statutory instrument. We have a system of constituencies that are arbitrary, inconsistent and often unrepresentative of any logic. We have a devolutionary settlement that is unbalanced and lacking in principles of equity across the union. We have a government that has untrammelled power to dictate to a majority of the population that did not vote for it.
Basically our constitutional settlement is a mess. It is only vaguely democratic. Brexiteers who ignorantly and arrogantly try to pontificate to other Europeans on democracy are only further demonstrating their very limited understanding and intellectual capacity.
Again as I said earlier thanks to the Parliament Act the Upper House can not frustrate the will of the Lower House. By convention going back centuries the Head of State doesn't interfere in politics either. The real power is all held by the elected house.
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
Like Andy Murray
The SCons in 2017 were current Andy 'I'm back' Murray. Hopefully Andy doesn't revert to the broken down old shaggers which are the current SCons.
Perhaps this is wrong but it seems to me that the Union is voluntary in the sense that 'theft being a crime' is voluntary. Both are statutory, and were undertaken voluntarily in our name by the relevant supreme authority at the time.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
The 2014 referendum saw Scots vote to stay in the UK so UK elections are exactly that, the next Scottish election is for Holyrood in 2021
Using your massive expertise in matters Jockish, can you explain why every single atom of the Scottish Conservative UK General Election campaign was aimed at asking people to vote for them to stop Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish msp, leader of a Scotland only party and FM of Scotland) and say no to a second Scottish indy referendum?
54% of Scots did indeed vote for Unionist parties, the Scottish Tories the largest of those
How does the European Council not the European Commission get chosen by the European Elections? If there is a European demos then European laws should get chosen by European Elections - which European Election chooses the Council?
The individual elections in each country produce the democratic representation on the Council (some rather more democratic than others, he says enviously looking at literally every other country in the 28). And it's been your lot that have refused to give more power to the European Parliament and to retain it on the Council (although the parliament has rejected commissioners which is a damn sight more than we get to do with the cabinet here), and now you complain that the parliament lacks power...
So you accept then that there is not a European demos and power is not held by the European Parliament elected at European Elections? Glad we cleared that one up.
Yes I complain about that. Either we should have a European state with European powers held by a European Parliament elected at European elections . . . or we should have a UK state with UK powers held by a UK Parliament elected at UK elections . . . or we should have an English state with English powers held by an English Parliament elected at English elections.
Choose what demos you want and go with that. The EU though is a mess.
Fratelli d'Italia gaining support in the latest Italian polls. Now clearly ahead of Forza.
I haven't done any research on Italy, when is their election and is Forza the one Belushsconi was the leader of?
Would that make them left or right wing?
2023. In Italy parties that are could be described as fascist and neo-nazis take close to 45% in opinion polls.
Even under PR they could win a majority, in their favour is that Italy has a centrist technocratic government since 2011 that takes the blame, but 2023 is a long way.
Perhaps this is wrong but it seems to me that the Union is voluntary in the sense that 'theft being a crime' is voluntary. Both are statutory, and were undertaken voluntarily in our name by the relevant supreme authority at the time.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
The 2014 referendum saw Scots vote to stay in the UK so UK elections are exactly that, the next Scottish election is for Holyrood in 2021
Using your massive expertise in matters Jockish, can you explain why every single atom of the Scottish Conservative UK General Election campaign was aimed at asking people to vote for them to stop Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish msp, leader of a Scotland only party and FM of Scotland) and say no to a second Scottish indy referendum?
Because it was smart politics.
Just as Nicola Sturgeon chose to tie her future to Jeremy Corbyn and say that she would insist upon a second referendum as her price for bringing him into Downing Street. She failed to get enough MPs to do that though, your side lost the election, get over it. Next time your side wins the election you can hold a referendum.
The problem is they kept drinking their own kool aid.
Remainers were convinced of their own virtue and always thought the public would bow down to their superior views. But two things were always true.
1: Bringing down Theresa May was always likely to see a harder Leaver replace her in the Conservative Party. 2: Leave constituencies outnumbered Remain Constituencies at the referendum by almost 2 to 1.
Point (2) is absolutely key. As regards England it's even more pronounced. The 2016 Referendum was a landslide under FPTP.
Given this, and given Johnson's success in consolidating the Leave vote behind him to "Get Brexit Done", the simple fact of the matter is that this GE was a slam dunk for the Cons. It was only ever a question of the size of the majority. And this is not hindsight. It was clear to me right from the outset and I posted accordingly.
All the talk about "Corbyn" misses this essential point. Sure, with a different leader and policies Labour might have restricted the majority to, say, 50. Perhaps even to 30. But that was the upper limit of what was feasible.
The fact that the New New Labour Party actively despises and campaigns against the it's traditional core voters was also of interest. The only question was how long they could do that for.
An aside - I was recently told there was "No culture" in England. At that moment I was standing outside the church where Orwell is buried.
Perhaps this is wrong but it seems to me that the Union is voluntary in the sense that 'theft being a crime' is voluntary. Both are statutory, and were undertaken voluntarily in our name by the relevant supreme authority at the time.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
The 2014 referendum saw Scots vote to stay in the UK so UK elections are exactly that, the next Scottish election is for Holyrood in 2021
Using your massive expertise in matters Jockish, can you explain why every single atom of the Scottish Conservative UK General Election campaign was aimed at asking people to vote for them to stop Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish msp, leader of a Scotland only party and FM of Scotland) and say no to a second Scottish indy referendum?
54% of Scots did indeed vote for Unionist parties, the Scottish Tories the largest of those
So 54% of UK voters voted against BJ Brexit? Cool.
Fratelli d'Italia gaining support in the latest Italian polls. Now clearly ahead of Forza.
I haven't done any research on Italy, when is their election and is Forza the one Belushsconi was the leader of?
Would that make them left or right wing?
FdI to the right of Lega, which is to the right of Forza.
Essentially it represents rightward drift of the likely next ruling block.
Italian politics is all over the political compass. What is described as "right" there very often involves heavy handed corporatism, for example. Mind you, not surprising when you consider the roots of some of the parties....
Perhaps this is wrong but it seems to me that the Union is voluntary in the sense that 'theft being a crime' is voluntary. Both are statutory, and were undertaken voluntarily in our name by the relevant supreme authority at the time.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
The 2014 referendum saw Scots vote to stay in the UK so UK elections are exactly that, the next Scottish election is for Holyrood in 2021
Using your massive expertise in matters Jockish, can you explain why every single atom of the Scottish Conservative UK General Election campaign was aimed at asking people to vote for them to stop Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish msp, leader of a Scotland only party and FM of Scotland) and say no to a second Scottish indy referendum?
Because it was smart politics.
Just as Nicola Sturgeon chose to tie her future to Jeremy Corbyn and say that she would insist upon a second referendum as her price for bringing him into Downing Street. She failed to get enough MPs to do that though, your side lost the election, get over it. Next time your side wins the election you can hold a referendum.
Perhaps this is wrong but it seems to me that the Union is voluntary in the sense that 'theft being a crime' is voluntary. Both are statutory, and were undertaken voluntarily in our name by the relevant supreme authority at the time.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
The 2014 referendum saw Scots vote to stay in the UK so UK elections are exactly that, the next Scottish election is for Holyrood in 2021
Using your massive expertise in matters Jockish, can you explain why every single atom of the Scottish Conservative UK General Election campaign was aimed at asking people to vote for them to stop Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish msp, leader of a Scotland only party and FM of Scotland) and say no to a second Scottish indy referendum?
Because it was smart politics.
Just as Nicola Sturgeon chose to tie her future to Jeremy Corbyn and say that she would insist upon a second referendum as her price for bringing him into Downing Street. She failed to get enough MPs to do that though, your side lost the election, get over it. Next time your side wins the election you can hold a referendum.
Who asked you?
This is a public site, anyone can reply. If you want a private conversation send an email or direct message.
Best of luck next time your side wins an election, I want you to win your referendum, but you lost this time so its not going to happen. Such is life.
This is a public site, anyone can reply. If you want a private conversation send an email or direct message.
Best of luck next time your side wins an election, I want you to win your referendum, but you lost this time so its not going to happen. Such is life.
Just so you can direct your efforts to all the other subjects upon which you love to pontificate in a barely informed manner, your repetitive posts (27k and counting) are very much in the ignore pile.
Perhaps this is wrong but it seems to me that the Union is voluntary in the sense that 'theft being a crime' is voluntary. Both are statutory, and were undertaken voluntarily in our name by the relevant supreme authority at the time.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
On "Theft being a crime" - I was out for drinks, a day or two ago, with a bunch of very progressive lawyers. One was having a rant about the fact that "small" crimes are crimes at all - shoplifting is apparently a social problem rather than a crime. Apparently the cure is to de-criminalise small crimes....
I then made a social faux pas - pointed out that BoJo is leading the way with the de-criminalisation of non-payment of the license fee. Apparently this isn't what they meant.....
I then doubled down by suggesting that I would welcome their plans - I would form a series of local cooperative insurance schemes (under a single corporate brand) to provide "Community Restorative Justice" to small shop keepers etc. I was somewhat irked at their reaction to the idea that members of the more colourful parts of the Northern Irish community would be hired as consultants to the scheme - as I pointed out, they have a very deep knowledge and understanding of such matters.
Perhaps this is wrong but it seems to me that the Union is voluntary in the sense that 'theft being a crime' is voluntary. Both are statutory, and were undertaken voluntarily in our name by the relevant supreme authority at the time.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
The 2014 referendum saw Scots vote to stay in the UK so UK elections are exactly that, the next Scottish election is for Holyrood in 2021
Using your massive expertise in matters Jockish, can you explain why every single atom of the Scottish Conservative UK General Election campaign was aimed at asking people to vote for them to stop Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish msp, leader of a Scotland only party and FM of Scotland) and say no to a second Scottish indy referendum?
54% of Scots did indeed vote for Unionist parties, the Scottish Tories the largest of those
So 54% of UK voters voted against BJ Brexit? Cool.
That is splicing and dicing in your favour. 46% voted for Brexit parties. 21% voted for anti-Brexit parties. 33% voted for being neutral in a new vote parties.
Perhaps this is wrong but it seems to me that the Union is voluntary in the sense that 'theft being a crime' is voluntary. Both are statutory, and were undertaken voluntarily in our name by the relevant supreme authority at the time.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
Funny, the Tories (especially on here) seemed very happy to treat the 2017 GE in Scotland as a Scottish election which Ruth 'won' (tr: distant second). I guess to slightly alter the old saw, elections are Scottish when SCons do slightly less crap, but UK when they revert to their standard crapness.
The 2014 referendum saw Scots vote to stay in the UK so UK elections are exactly that, the next Scottish election is for Holyrood in 2021
Using your massive expertise in matters Jockish, can you explain why every single atom of the Scottish Conservative UK General Election campaign was aimed at asking people to vote for them to stop Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish msp, leader of a Scotland only party and FM of Scotland) and say no to a second Scottish indy referendum?
54% of Scots did indeed vote for Unionist parties, the Scottish Tories the largest of those
So 54% of UK voters voted against BJ Brexit? Cool.
That is splicing and dicing in your favour. 46% voted for Brexit parties. 21% voted for anti-Brexit parties. 33% voted for being neutral in a new vote parties.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. The 'Unionist' party of SLab now has several elected and prominent members who have spoken out in favour of Scotland having a second indy ref though they say they would campaign to stay in the union.
Fratelli d'Italia gaining support in the latest Italian polls. Now clearly ahead of Forza.
I haven't done any research on Italy, when is their election and is Forza the one Belushsconi was the leader of?
Would that make them left or right wing?
FdI to the right of Lega, which is to the right of Forza.
Essentially it represents rightward drift of the likely next ruling block.
Essentially, Italy Is a right wing country?
I think it fairer to say that the existing parties became, literal, real example of the "corrupt, just the same in rotation" that various people allege is true of other countries.
This meant that the politics of change became the province of the bizarre and the extremists. Hence Berlusconi...
There is not so much enthusiasm for policies of the Reactionary Right (they are definitely not free market Progressive Right - big on the "right kind of" corporatism) as enthusiasm for promises of changing the system.
This is a public site, anyone can reply. If you want a private conversation send an email or direct message.
Best of luck next time your side wins an election, I want you to win your referendum, but you lost this time so its not going to happen. Such is life.
Just so you can direct your efforts to all the other subjects upon which you love to pontificate in a barely informed manner, your repetitive posts (27k and counting) are very much in the ignore pile.
Not sure why post count matters. Is your 17k and counting supposed to be more impressive somehow?
My numbers may be higher because I get into detailed discussions and a back and forth which means more numbers. I don't make my own point then ignore the message of people who reply (unless I'm not online and missed it) like you're ignoring my point that Sturgeon repeatedly and specifically tied her future and the future of the referendum to getting Corbyn into Downing Street. I haven't seen you once accept let alone address the fact your side lost the election last week.
You can't reasonably say you will demand an Independence Referendum as the price for your support then when you lose the election and your support isn't needed still expect those who won the election to give in to your demands.
In the UK: Parliament is 1 step from the electorate, it is directly elected. Boris Johnson as Prime Minister is 1-2 steps removed from the electorate. He is directly elected as MP, then chosen by the MPs to be PM. To pass a law only the directly elected House has to vote in favour (as shown with the Benn Act).
In the EU. The European Parliament is 1 step from the electorate, it is directly elected. The European Council 3 steps from the electorate. Voters choose MPs, who choose PMs, who sit together internationally. The European Commission is chosen by voters choosing MPs, who choose PMs, who sit together internationally, who nominate a Commission President, who gets ratified by MEPs. And to pass a law all these institutions must approve. There can be no Benn Act passed by the Parliament alone.
If you think that's democratic, there's so many degrees of separation there we may as well just make Kevin Bacon dictator for life and call it democracy.
In the UK we have people sitting in the upper house who are there because one of their ancestors was one of some long forgotten King's bastards, or they knew Lloyd George. We have a head of State who is hereditary with popularity, but no democratic legitimacy. We have huge amounts of legislation passed by statutory instrument. We have a system of constituencies that are arbitrary, inconsistent and often unrepresentative of any logic. We have a devolutionary settlement that is unbalanced and lacking in principles of equity across the union. We have a government that has untrammelled power to dictate to a majority of the population that did not vote for it.
Basically our constitutional settlement is a mess. It is only vaguely democratic. Brexiteers who ignorantly and arrogantly try to pontificate to other Europeans on democracy are only further demonstrating their very limited understanding and intellectual capacity.
Again as I said earlier thanks to the Parliament Act the Upper House can not frustrate the will of the Lower House. By convention going back centuries the Head of State doesn't interfere in politics either. The real power is all held by the elected house.
I agree that devolution is unbalanced.
You have every right to express your views but I do wish you would make yourself a little more informed before you exercise that right. The House of Lords and the Monarchy have huge symbolic and practical importance in our constitution, and they are, whether you like them or not, fundamentally undemocratic . You also fail to address my central point; persons such as yourself trying to portray the EU as somehow being less democratic while not noticing the beam in our own eye. This makes you look either massively biased, rather silly or perhaps both.
Yeah, that was kind of my point. The 'Unionist' party of SLab now has several elected and prominent members who have spoken out in favour of Scotland having a second indy ref though they say they would campaign to stay in the union.
Indeed that's true Labour are much more open to the idea of Scotland going independent and next time Labour get into Downing Street I fully expect there to be a second Indendence Referendum.
So you can't address my points so you're just going to be rude. Speaks volumes, I've been polite to you, even want you to get your ambition. Nevermind, once you get over losing last week's election you will calm down I'm sure.
Thank goodness for Labour that the withdrawal agreement process is being concluded early in this parliament. Lots of Nothing Has Changed-ers on their benches today.
You have every right to express your views but I do wish you would make yourself a little more informed before you exercise that right. The House of Lords and the Monarchy have huge symbolic and practical importance in our constitution, and they are, whether you like them or not, fundamentally undemocratic . You also fail to address my central point; persons such as yourself trying to portray the EU as somehow being less democratic while not noticing the beam in our own eye. This makes you look either massively biased, rather silly or perhaps both.
Well lets see.
House of Lords - Can be overriden by the Parliament Act. I would support democratic reform or abolition of this and always have done. Monarchy - Symbolic only, but I am a republican and want to see it get abolished.
So you can't address my points so you're just going to be rude. Speaks volumes, I've been polite to you, even want you to get your ambition. Nevermind, once you get over losing last week's election you will calm down I'm sure.
How many times does he have to tell you he ignores your posts?!
How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?
How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
Well, I was represented in the European Parliament, for one. I'm not represented in this Westminster abomination.
My vote in the 2019 EU elections caused a (very good) Green MEP to be elected, i.e. Ellie Chowns. In 45 years of adult life, my vote has only affected an election result this once and that's only because the EU insists on PR.
Is anyone else in the same position? It's dispiriting.
Did she win by one vote? Individual voters are rarely decisive.
My vote in the euro elections for the LibDems was the only successful use of my vote in 40 years....:(
In the UK we have people sitting in the upper house who are there because one of their ancestors was one of some long forgotten King's bastards, or they knew Lloyd George. We have a head of State who is hereditary with popularity, but no democratic legitimacy. We have huge amounts of legislation passed by statutory instrument. We have a system of constituencies that are arbitrary, inconsistent and often unrepresentative of any logic. We have a devolutionary settlement that is unbalanced and lacking in principles of equity across the union. We have a government that has untrammelled power to dictate to a majority of the population that did not vote for it.
Basically our constitutional settlement is a mess. It is only vaguely democratic. Brexiteers who ignorantly and arrogantly try to pontificate to other Europeans on democracy are only further demonstrating their very limited understanding and intellectual capacity.
Again as I said earlier thanks to the Parliament Act the Upper House can not frustrate the will of the Lower House. By convention going back centuries the Head of State doesn't interfere in politics either. The real power is all held by the elected house.
I agree that devolution is unbalanced.
You have every right to express your views but I do wish you would make yourself a little more informed before you exercise that right. The House of Lords and the Monarchy have huge symbolic and practical importance in our constitution, and they are, whether you like them or not, fundamentally undemocratic . You also fail to address my central point; persons such as yourself trying to portray the EU as somehow being less democratic while not noticing the beam in our own eye. This makes you look either massively biased, rather silly or perhaps both.
OK now I'm lost. Could a representative Remainer please clarify if:
a) Our constitutional settlement is a mess, totally undemocratic, and in serious need of reform; b) Our constitutional settlement is working just fine, as intended, and Boris Johnson meddling with it is a grave risk to our functioning democracy; or c) The bits of our constitutional settlement that have enabled Brexit are irrevocably broken and the bits that nearly stopped it are working brilliantly but need to be beefed up?
Comments
"Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed the economy grew 0.4% in the third quarter of the year, better than a previous estimate of 0.3% and boosted by upward revisions to services and construction output.
The ONS said a surge in goods exports helped Britain’s current account deficit narrow to 15.860 billion pounds in the third quarter of 2019 from 24.152 billion pounds in the second quarter, roughly in line with expectations.
As a percentage of economic output, the deficit fell to 2.8%, its smallest since early 2012."
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy/uk-economys-growth-in-third-quarter-revised-up-smallest-current-account-gap-since-2012-idUKKBN1YO0YB
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1207746739182219266
The fact there is so much focus on Cummings says a lot. Don't forget he purposely kept MPs away from the vote leave campaign.
And the European Parliament is not democratic. It lacks powers and can't undo actions of its predecessors without also getting through the European Council which you're not voting for other nations members of. The principle of no Parliament binding its successors is entirely violated by the EU abomination tearing up democracy.
A spectacular failure of both tactics and strategy.
Is anyone else in the same position? It's dispiriting.
Even if you consider the EU to be a single demos (and I patently don't) the path the EU takes is not decided at the European Elections. If eg the European Elections resulted in a majority saying to scrap the Common Agricultural Policy there is no guarantee that would happen if the European Council chooses to block that.
Our Parliament passes laws by itself. The European Parliament does not.
And a bus.
That's how bad they were.
I know that will enrage many on here. But it's the truth.
Cummings must have been lying on the floor listening to the nation again.
The issue with May's government is that May sidelined her Cabinet and took on the negotiations with her sherpa and did a terrible job herself. And she was not a leaver.
Once Johnson became PM and took over negotiations himself it was job done with a far superior deal.
Nobody for one second under Johnson suggests that this was Steve Barclays deal afterall. For a very good reason.
The problem was there was no majority in parliament. For anything. The Brexiteers offered a majority for something. Too many MPs didn't see the danger of parliament turning into a talking shop of no consequence.
That doesn't get away from the fact that hardly any Brexiteers have shown themselves to be ministerially competent. Barnier with Davis, looking like the university don reasoning with a rather dim undergraduate, Raab not knowing the significance of Dover, Patel and her clandestine meetings with a foreign government. The eternal fantasies of Liam Fox and Boris's own time at the FCO when he achieved? What?
There's no doubt the remainers ought to hang their heads in shame that they lost to this shower but that doesn't make them any less of a shower.
Remainers were convinced of their own virtue and always thought the public would bow down to their superior views. But two things were always true.
1: Bringing down Theresa May was always likely to see a harder Leaver replace her in the Conservative Party.
2: Leave constituencies outnumbered Remain Constituencies at the referendum by almost 2 to 1.
I guess it's not Len's own money, and if he wants to spend millions of Unite members money helping a friend of a friend, that's totally fine.
(Am on the tablet hence lower-case: apols)
https://twitter.com/John_Arab/status/1207935945460334592?s=20
The European Elections don't work the same way. The European Parliament is not supreme. That is why the European Union is undemocratic.
Your ignorance is matched only by your unjustified confidence.
https://twitter.com/jondharvey/status/1207250743591342081
However even that makes no difference to my point. The European Parliament is not supreme in Europe. It can't override the European Council can it?
Even if you believe in a European demos, the European Elections don't determine what laws get passed and how.
Fat chance.
How does the European Council not the European Commission get chosen by the European Elections? If there is a European demos then European laws should get chosen by European Elections - which European Election chooses the Council?
Her share of the vote, maybe 12%, got her that percent of W.Mids seats. Because it passed the threshold, she got elected. In a Westminster seat, anything under 40-50% is usually a wasted vote.
It appears that the UK actually used to have some multi-member constituencies, the last being abolished in ~1950.
https://www.vox.com/2019/12/19/21030985/amy-klobuchar-electability-democratic-debate
Parliament is 1 step from the electorate, it is directly elected.
Boris Johnson as Prime Minister is 1-2 steps removed from the electorate. He is directly elected as MP, then chosen by the MPs to be PM.
To pass a law only the directly elected House has to vote in favour (as shown with the Benn Act).
In the EU.
The European Parliament is 1 step from the electorate, it is directly elected.
The European Council 3 steps from the electorate. Voters choose MPs, who choose PMs, who sit together internationally.
The European Commission is chosen by voters choosing MPs, who choose PMs, who sit together internationally, who nominate a Commission President, who gets ratified by MEPs.
And to pass a law all these institutions must approve. There can be no Benn Act passed by the Parliament alone.
If you think that's democratic, there's so many degrees of separation there we may as well just make Kevin Bacon dictator for life and call it democracy.
Once a thing is statutory it ceases to be voluntary - it becomes the law of the land, the land in this case being the UK. It requires a voluntary further act by the UK's supreme authority - parliament - to make it cease being the case.
BTW it is notable that the SNP in practice treat all elections (especially this last one) as if they were Scottish elections with a Scottish result. They were not. They were UK elections with a UK result in which the SNP came a bad third because they are not a real national party, they are a local pressure group.
Would that make them left or right wing?
Basically our constitutional settlement is a mess. It is only vaguely democratic. Brexiteers who ignorantly and arrogantly try to pontificate to other Europeans on democracy are only further demonstrating their very limited understanding and intellectual capacity.
Given this, and given Johnson's success in consolidating the Leave vote behind him to "Get Brexit Done", the simple fact of the matter is that this GE was a slam dunk for the Cons. It was only ever a question of the size of the majority. And this is not hindsight. It was clear to me right from the outset and I posted accordingly.
All the talk about "Corbyn" misses this essential point. Sure, with a different leader and policies Labour might have restricted the majority to, say, 50. Perhaps even to 30. But that was the upper limit of what was feasible.
The next general election is not due to 2023 but the fragile nature of the ruling M5* and PD coalition means it could be earlier, especially if Salvini does well in regional polls next year.
Latest poll Lega 31%, PD 19%, M5S 16.4%, Fratelli 10.6%, FI 5.8%
https://www.demopolis.it/?p=6888
You mean your lot lost and you aint happy...
Essentially it represents rightward drift of the likely next ruling block.
I agree that devolution is unbalanced.
Yes I complain about that. Either we should have a European state with European powers held by a European Parliament elected at European elections . . . or we should have a UK state with UK powers held by a UK Parliament elected at UK elections . . . or we should have an English state with English powers held by an English Parliament elected at English elections.
Choose what demos you want and go with that. The EU though is a mess.
In Italy parties that are could be described as fascist and neo-nazis take close to 45% in opinion polls.
Even under PR they could win a majority, in their favour is that Italy has a centrist technocratic government since 2011 that takes the blame, but 2023 is a long way.
Just as Nicola Sturgeon chose to tie her future to Jeremy Corbyn and say that she would insist upon a second referendum as her price for bringing him into Downing Street. She failed to get enough MPs to do that though, your side lost the election, get over it. Next time your side wins the election you can hold a referendum.
An aside - I was recently told there was "No culture" in England. At that moment I was standing outside the church where Orwell is buried.
Best of luck next time your side wins an election, I want you to win your referendum, but you lost this time so its not going to happen. Such is life.
I then made a social faux pas - pointed out that BoJo is leading the way with the de-criminalisation of non-payment of the license fee. Apparently this isn't what they meant.....
I then doubled down by suggesting that I would welcome their plans - I would form a series of local cooperative insurance schemes (under a single corporate brand) to provide "Community Restorative Justice" to small shop keepers etc. I was somewhat irked at their reaction to the idea that members of the more colourful parts of the Northern Irish community would be hired as consultants to the scheme - as I pointed out, they have a very deep knowledge and understanding of such matters.
The 'Unionist' party of SLab now has several elected and prominent members who have spoken out in favour of Scotland having a second indy ref though they say they would campaign to stay in the union.
This meant that the politics of change became the province of the bizarre and the extremists. Hence Berlusconi...
There is not so much enthusiasm for policies of the Reactionary Right (they are definitely not free market Progressive Right - big on the "right kind of" corporatism) as enthusiasm for promises of changing the system.
My numbers may be higher because I get into detailed discussions and a back and forth which means more numbers. I don't make my own point then ignore the message of people who reply (unless I'm not online and missed it) like you're ignoring my point that Sturgeon repeatedly and specifically tied her future and the future of the referendum to getting Corbyn into Downing Street. I haven't seen you once accept let alone address the fact your side lost the election last week.
You can't reasonably say you will demand an Independence Referendum as the price for your support then when you lose the election and your support isn't needed still expect those who won the election to give in to your demands.
House of Lords - Can be overriden by the Parliament Act. I would support democratic reform or abolition of this and always have done.
Monarchy - Symbolic only, but I am a republican and want to see it get abolished.
What beam am I missing precisely?
a) Our constitutional settlement is a mess, totally undemocratic, and in serious need of reform;
b) Our constitutional settlement is working just fine, as intended, and Boris Johnson meddling with it is a grave risk to our functioning democracy; or
c) The bits of our constitutional settlement that have enabled Brexit are irrevocably broken and the bits that nearly stopped it are working brilliantly but need to be beefed up?