Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The front pages on this historic day

1246

Comments

  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314

    Consider the latest economic data from Europe.

    Almost no growth at all, France and Italy shrinking. The ECB with the easing taps full on and insisting things are getting better. Negative bond yields across a slew of markets.

    What's the recipe for recovery? Ursula Von Der Leyen's unscrutinised and unvoted for green deal. A green deal that promises to further penalise the great manufacturing bases of Europe in Germany, France and Italy.

    Even the most devoted euro enthusiast would surely concede its not an attractive picture.

    I don't think any country is immune from doing great damage to themselves via some kind of "green" imperative.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    That's such a bullshit statement. The EU is much more than a trade agreement. If it was just trade then Brexit would never have happened.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314
    MaxPB said:

    That's such a bullshit statement. The EU is much more than a trade agreement. If it was just trade then Brexit would never have happened.
    Very true it is a broadly political project which seeks ever closer union amongst its member states. If only we could somehow have obtained an opt out from that ever closer union.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    Still effectively members during the transition, then on to a FTA?
  • Options
    contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    TOPPING said:

    Consider the latest economic data from Europe.

    Almost no growth at all, France and Italy shrinking. The ECB with the easing taps full on and insisting things are getting better. Negative bond yields across a slew of markets.

    What's the recipe for recovery? Ursula Von Der Leyen's unscrutinised and unvoted for green deal. A green deal that promises to further penalise the great manufacturing bases of Europe in Germany, France and Italy.

    Even the most devoted euro enthusiast would surely concede its not an attractive picture.

    I don't think any country is immune from doing great damage to themselves via some kind of "green" imperative.
    Maybe but democratic countries are able to undo the worst excesses of these policies when they occur much more quickly and flexibly than an institution like the EU. Boris has already said he will not go down the hair shirt route, and his backbenchers would be all over him if he did.

    Who or what is to check Von Der Leyen?
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    That's such a bullshit statement. The EU is much more than a trade agreement. If it was just trade then Brexit would never have happened.
    Very true it is a broadly political project which seeks ever closer union amongst its member states. If only we could somehow have obtained an opt out from that ever closer union.
    Yes, the same value as when we secured reductions in CAP spending.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Jonathan said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Anyone else surprised how well Dawn Butler is doing in CLP nominations? She`s in strong second place. Anything to read into this?

    Burgon is buggered.....
    Butler is reliably Corbynite without going OTT about it, and I think also there's a feeling that some racial and gender balance with Starmer would be a good idea. I'm considering voting for her.
    That`s interesting. Why Butler rather than Raynor?
    Nothing against Rayner, but I see her as a loyalist rather than a left-winger. I accpet that we need Starmer or Nandy at the top of the ticket, but a signal to the Corbynites (like me) that we're not throwing everything overboard would be good for unity. And race is mildly relevant too at about the same level as gender - it's odd that we've never had a senior black MP in either leader or deputy slots.

    I might vote for Rayner in the end, but certainly I think there should be a contest, and Butler would be an interesting contrast. I don't share the dislike of Burgon that seems common here, but he's a bit One True Faith for me.
    Burgon is appalling.
    As is Dawn Butler.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314

    TOPPING said:

    Consider the latest economic data from Europe.

    Almost no growth at all, France and Italy shrinking. The ECB with the easing taps full on and insisting things are getting better. Negative bond yields across a slew of markets.

    What's the recipe for recovery? Ursula Von Der Leyen's unscrutinised and unvoted for green deal. A green deal that promises to further penalise the great manufacturing bases of Europe in Germany, France and Italy.

    Even the most devoted euro enthusiast would surely concede its not an attractive picture.

    I don't think any country is immune from doing great damage to themselves via some kind of "green" imperative.
    Maybe but democratic countries are able to undo the worst excesses of these policies when they occur much more quickly and flexibly than an institution like the EU. Boris has already said he will not go down the hair shirt route, and his backbenchers would be all over him if he did.

    Who or what is to check Von Der Leyen?
    The members. That's how it works in a club. Either you sign up and accept all the rules albeit one or two you don't want, or you leave the club. We chose the latter option. But the EU is a democratic institution whose members retain sovereignty, as we demonstrated.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    That's such a bullshit statement. The EU is much more than a trade agreement. If it was just trade then Brexit would never have happened.
    Very true it is a broadly political project which seeks ever closer union amongst its member states. If only we could somehow have obtained an opt out from that ever closer union.
    Yes, the same value as when we secured reductions in CAP spending.
    We'll never know. It was in one of those pesky EU agreements which we know they love to ignore.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,706

    Meeksit means Meeksit. I suppose today is as good a day as any to announce that I’m retiring on 30 April.

    Congratulations! If you ever fancy dipping back into academia I found the Open University very rewarding - did the degrees I should have done decades earlier!
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    That's fine I'm not remotely worried!

    If you are, if you're coming around to the idea of the UK being members as a humiliation, then I presume you are going to welcome our leaving. Welcome aboard!

    You are evidently very worried otherwise you would have ignored my post.

    I am just pointing out who is likely to have the greater influence in our future negotiations and the fact that we are leaving at midnight *their time* is a very small indication of this. Same with Boris' deal and the border in the Irish Sea, which he said no PM could ever agree to, just before he agreed to it.
    You don't think highly enough of yourself!

    I responded to your post because it was you and we engage frequently, not because of any worries. Had you not posted it I wouldn't have engaged in the topic by bringing it up unilaterally.
    We do engage regularly, which I enjoy. As such I know when you are dissembling and dissembling you were when you tried to deflect on the substance of my post, small point as it was, that even leaving the EU we are doing it on their terms.

    "It suits us"..."an hour early, great"..."less chance of disruption" are all, as you are well aware, dissembling.
    We are leaving on their terms somewhat because we want to leave with an agreement. You know full well that I was prepared to leave without a deal but always wanted one and remained stubbornly confident that we would get an amended deal even when all concerned said that was impossible.

    The key to getting a deal is of course to compromise where you are able to and fight over issues that matter. This timing is not an issue that matters - it is a date and time that suits both parties so why fight over this issue?

    I'm not interested in disagreeing for disagreements sake.
    The point is, we will need a deal with the EU. Not to have one will be very bad for the UK, and less bad, but still bad for the EU, although far less on a per-country basis.

    We can't just pretend that the bloc into which we send nearly half our exports doesn't exist and hence we can just have a "no deal" with them. We will have a deal and, sadly, it will be almost wholly on their terms. My small point about the fanfare of leaving at, er, 11pm our time, is that such is going to be the tenor of these negotiations. We will largely be takers not makers.
    Except for the reasons I stated 11pm suits us all.

    If you're claiming that we will get a trade deal that suits us all, then such a tenor is one I'm quite happy to embrace.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    That's fine I'm not remotely worried!

    If you are, if you're coming around to the idea of the UK being members as a humiliation, then I presume you are going to welcome our leaving. Welcome aboard!

    You are evidently very worried otherwise you would have ignored my post.

    I am just pointing out who is likely to have the greater influence in our futureeed to it.
    You don't think highly enough of yourself!

    I responded to your post because it was you and we engage frequently, not because of any worries. Had you not posted it I wouldn't have engaged in the topic by bringing it up unilaterally.
    We do engage regularly, which I enjoy. As such I know when you are dissembling and dissembling you were when you tried to deflect on the substance of my post, small point as it was, that even leaving the EU we are doing it on their terms.

    "It suits us"..."an hour early, great"..."less chance of disruption" are all, as you are well aware, dissembling.
    We are leaving on their terms somewhat because we want to leave with an agreement. You know full well that I was prepared to leave without a deal but always wanted one and remained stubbornly confident that we would get an amended deal even when all concerned said that was impossible.

    The key to getting a deal is of course to compromise where you are able to and fight over issues that matter. This timing is not an issue that matters - it is a date and time that suits both parties so why fight over this issue?

    I'm not interested in disagreeing for disagreements sake.
    The point is, we will need a deal with the EU. Not to have one will be very bad for the UK, and less bad, but still bad for the EU, although far less on a per-country basis.

    We can't just pretend that the bloc into which we send nearly half our exports doesn't exist and hence we can just have a "no deal" with them. We will have a deal and, sadly, it will be almost wholly on their terms. My small point about the fanfare of leaving at, er, 11pm our time, is that such is going to be the tenor of these negotiations. We will largely be takers not makers.
    Except for the reasons I stated 11pm suits us all.

    If you're claiming that we will get a trade deal that suits us all, then such a tenor is one I'm quite happy to embrace.
    Them: You can have any colour you want as long as it's black
    Us: That's great we like black.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    That's fine I'm not remotely worried!

    If you are, if you're coming around to the idea of the UK being members as a humiliation, then I presume you are going to welcome our leaving. Welcome aboard!

    You are evidently very worried otherwise you would have ignored my post.

    I am just pointing out who is likely to have the greater influence in our futureeed to it.
    You don't think highly enough of yourself!

    I responded to your post because it was you and we engage frequently, not because of any worries. Had you not posted it I wouldn't have engaged in the topic by bringing it up unilaterally.
    We do engage regularly, which I enjoy. As such I know when you are dissembling and dissembling you were when you tried to deflect on the substance of my post, small point as it was, that even leaving the EU we are doing it on their terms.

    "It suits us"..."an hour early, great"..."less chance of disruption" are all, as you are well aware, dissembling.
    We are leaving on their terms somewhat because we want to leave with an agreement. You know full well that I was prepared to leave without a deal but always wanted one and remained stubbornly confident that we would get an amended deal even when all concerned said that was impossible.

    The key to getting a deal is of course to compromise where you are able to and fight over issues that matter. This timing is not an issue that matters - it is a date and time that suits both parties so why fight over this issue?

    I'm not interested in disagreeing for disagreements sake.
    The point is, we will need a deal with the EU. Not to have one will be very bad for the UK, and less bad, but still bad for the EU, although far less on a per-country basis.

    We can't just pretend that the bloc into which we send nearly half our exports doesn't exist and hence we can just have a "no deal" with them. We will have a deal and, sadly, it will be almost wholly on their terms. My small point about the fanfare of leaving at, er, 11pm our time, is that such is going to be the tenor of these negotiations. We will largely be takers not makers.
    Except for the reasons I stated 11pm suits us all.

    If you're claiming that we will get a trade deal that suits us all, then such a tenor is one I'm quite happy to embrace.
    Them: You can have any colour you want as long as it's black
    Us: That's great we like black.
    I suppose if you genuinely like black then it’s a convenient coincidence.
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    That's fine I'm not remotely worried!

    If you are, if you're coming around to the idea of the UK being members as a humiliation, then I presume you are going to welcome our leaving. Welcome aboard!

    You are evidently very worried otherwise you would have ignored my post.

    I am just pointing out who is likely to have the greater influence in our futureeed to it.
    You don't think highly enough of yourself!

    I responded to your post because it was you and we engage frequently, not because of any worries. Had you not posted it I wouldn't have engaged in the topic by bringing it up unilaterally.
    We do engage regularly, which I enjoy. As such I know when you are dissembling and dissembling you were when you tried to deflect on the substance of my post, small point as it was, that even leaving the EU we are doing it on their terms.

    "It suits us"..."an hour early, great"..."less chance of disruption" are all, as you are well aware, dissembling.
    We are leaving on their terms somewhat because we want to leave with an agreement. You know full well that I was prepared to leave without a deal but always wanted one and remained stubbornly confident that we would get an amended deal even when all concerned said that was impossible.

    The key to getting a deal is of course to compromise where you are able to and fight over issues that matter. This timing is not an issue that matters - it is a date and time that suits both parties so why fight over this issue?

    I'm not interested in disagreeing for disagreements sake.
    The point is, we will need a deal with the EU. Not to have one will be very bad for the UK, and less bad, but still bad for the EU, although far less on a per-country basis.

    We can't just pretend that the bloc into which we send nearly half our exports doesn't exist and hence we can just have a "no deal" with them. We will have a deal and, sadly, it will be almost wholly on their terms. My small point about the fanfare of leaving at, er, 11pm our time, is that such is going to be the tenor of these negotiations. We will largely be takers not makers.
    Except for the reasons I stated 11pm suits us all.

    If you're claiming that we will get a trade deal that suits us all, then such a tenor is one I'm quite happy to embrace.
    Them: You can have any colour you want as long as it's black
    Us: That's great we like black.
    You're getting it. :)
  • Options
    justin124 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Anyone else surprised how well Dawn Butler is doing in CLP nominations? She`s in strong second place. Anything to read into this?

    Burgon is buggered.....
    Butler is reliably Corbynite without going OTT about it, and I think also there's a feeling that some racial and gender balance with Starmer would be a good idea. I'm considering voting for her.
    That`s interesting. Why Butler rather than Raynor?
    Nothing against Rayner, but I see her as a loyalist rather than a left-winger. I accpet that we need Starmer or Nandy at the top of the ticket, but a signal to the Corbynites (like me) that we're not throwing everything overboard would be good for unity. And race is mildly relevant too at about the same level as gender - it's odd that we've never had a senior black MP in either leader or deputy slots.

    I might vote for Rayner in the end, but certainly I think there should be a contest, and Butler would be an interesting contrast. I don't share the dislike of Burgon that seems common here, but he's a bit One True Faith for me.
    Burgon is appalling.
    As is Dawn Butler.
    She's alright.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Anyone else surprised how well Dawn Butler is doing in CLP nominations? She`s in strong second place. Anything to read into this?

    Burgon is buggered.....
    Butler is reliably Corbynite without going OTT about it, and I think also there's a feeling that some racial and gender balance with Starmer would be a good idea. I'm considering voting for her.
    That`s interesting. Why Butler rather than Raynor?
    Nothing against Rayner, but I see her as a loyalist rather than a left-winger. I accpet that we need Starmer or Nandy at the top of the ticket, but a signal to the Corbynites (like me) that we're not throwing everything overboard would be good for unity. And race is mildly relevant too at about the same level as gender - it's odd that we've never had a senior black MP in either leader or deputy slots.

    I might vote for Rayner in the end, but certainly I think there should be a contest, and Butler would be an interesting contrast. I don't share the dislike of Burgon that seems common here, but he's a bit One True Faith for me.
    Burgon is appalling.
    As is Dawn Butler.
    She's alright.
    She comes across as thick and incoherent.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314

    I suppose if you genuinely like black then it’s a convenient coincidence.

    I think we're getting closer to an explanation of Brexit.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,481
    edited January 2020
    👀👀👀👀

    QAnon Followers Are Drinking Bleach to Avoid Coronavirus

    https://www.menshealth.com/health/a30702086/qanon-drinking-bleach-coronavirus/
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,631

    👀👀👀👀

    QAnon Followers Are Drinking Bleach to Avoid Coronavirus

    https://www.menshealth.com/health/a30702086/qanon-drinking-bleach-coronavirus/

    TBF, if the dosage is sufficient, that's 100% effective.
    The side effects are a little extreme, though....
  • Options
    contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    👀👀👀👀

    QAnon Followers Are Drinking Bleach to Avoid Coronavirus

    https://www.menshealth.com/health/a30702086/qanon-drinking-bleach-coronavirus/

    TBF, if the dosage is sufficient, that's 100% effective.
    The side effects are a little extreme, though....
    Worthy of a Darwin Award for anyone who gets the dosage high enough.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,028
    edited January 2020
    Wings over Scotland - Sturgeon 'The Betrayer' following her speech this morning

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-betrayer/comment-page-1/#comment-2513310
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
    Yes, by leaving it the UK is no longer within the confines of the EU. ;)
  • Options

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
    Indeed once we've left we're no long within the confines. QED.
  • Options
    Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
    He is right that we could not vote to remove Ursula von der Leyen though. That is a big mistake by the EU. They should have a directly elected President. A few cycles of that and we may want to be part of those big elections.
  • Options
    Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836

    Nigelb said:

    👀👀👀👀

    QAnon Followers Are Drinking Bleach to Avoid Coronavirus

    https://www.menshealth.com/health/a30702086/qanon-drinking-bleach-coronavirus/

    TBF, if the dosage is sufficient, that's 100% effective.
    The side effects are a little extreme, though....
    Worthy of a Darwin Award for anyone who gets the dosage high enough.
    I worry that this is a test by the Russians to see the level of brainwashing. If they can get some to kill themselves they could get them to kill others.
  • Options
    contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Most astonishingly, some senior policymakers think green policy has the capacity to drive growth. Where is the evidence for this? its just insane.
  • Options
    Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    RobD said:

    Still effectively members during the transition, then on to a FTA?
    Japan and Iceland might be stretches there.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081
    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
  • Options
    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Because the members of the club agree on a set of rules and members must abide by those rules. You're arguing that competitors who turn up to Wimbledon are forced to play tennis. It is an identity. It doesn't mean we weren't sovereign as we always were.
  • Options
    contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    edited January 2020

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Quite. She has far more power than a head of state. A head of state would have had to campaign on her green deal everywhere from Belfast to Belgrade, and watch bits get knocked off it by every populist in town until it did not exist any more.

    In her position she can just impose it. Almost incredibly I believe I heard her use the word 'mandate'.
  • Options
    contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    Is Liz Windsor imposing a far reaching green deal?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314
    edited January 2020
    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    Fucking hell it was a club. We decided to join and then we decided to leave. All perfectly democratic.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Quite. She has far more power than a head of state. A head of state would have had to campaign on her green deal everywhere from Belfast to Belgrade, and watch bits get knocked off it by every populist in town until it did not exist any more.

    In her position can just impose it. Almost incredibly I believe I heard her use the word 'mandate'.
    This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of how the EU works. Typical really.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969
    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    Fucking hell it was a club. We decided to join and then we decided to leave. All perfectly democratic.
    Yeah, and while we were members we were bound by the rules. I don't think that's in question.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226

    I'm not interested in disagreeing for disagreements sake.

    There’s a turn-up ☺

    This 11 pm point, though, Topping probably making too much of it - think he is - but it is interesting that we didn't hold out for a proper midnight slot. Perhaps we got something in return. Let's hope so.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,028
    Church of England apologises for LGBT sex guidance

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-51233003
  • Options

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    Is Liz Windsor imposing a far reaching green deal?
    Her successor plans to do so.

    He's been banging about it this week.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314
    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    Fucking hell it was a club. We decided to join and then we decided to leave. All perfectly democratic.
    Yeah, and while we were members we were bound by the rules. I don't think that's in question.
    So what's with the democratic/sovereignty bollocks?
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081
    RobD said:

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    Fucking hell it was a club. We decided to join and then we decided to leave. All perfectly democratic.
    Yeah, and while we were members we were bound by the rules. I don't think that's in question.
    Bound by the rules our democratically elected government pretty much wrote themselves.
  • Options
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    Remind me what happened to a previous monarch with the name Charles. ;)
  • Options
    nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Gabs3 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
    He is right that we could not vote to remove Ursula von der Leyen though. That is a big mistake by the EU. They should have a directly elected President. A few cycles of that and we may want to be part of those big elections.
    But a directly elected President would then be criticized as suggesting the EU is a nation.

    Which would still wind up those who voted Leave . Unless of course it was a UK politician who got the job !

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,028

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    That is exactly the plotline of the play King Charles III, the result is the Duchess of Cambridge manoeuvres to force his abdication and she and William take the throne instead
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,481
    edited January 2020
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    Remind me what happened to a previous monarch with the name Charles. ;)
    Well Charles II sired like a dozen illegitimate children with his mistresses.

    King Charles are randy gits who put their own desires ahead of the country.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081
    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    That is exactly the plotline of the play King Charles III, the result is the Duchess of Cambridge manoeuvres to force his abdication and she and William take the throne instead
    Doesn’t sound very democratic.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    Remind me what happened to a previous monarch with the name Charles. ;)
    Could you give us a 'heads up' please? :)
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,602

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Since your e-mail is stereotyping and unnecessarily perjorative, I think it's best to leave you in your present bewildered state.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Since your e-mail is stereotyping and unnecessarily perjorative, I think it's best to leave you in your present bewildered state.
    Say what?
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Because the members of the club agree on a set of rules and members must abide by those rules. You're arguing that competitors who turn up to Wimbledon are forced to play tennis. It is an identity. It doesn't mean we weren't sovereign as we always were.
    The issue with the EU is that its not a club where the members agree on a set of rules and then abide with them. If that was the case there would be less of an issue.

    The EU has powers to create new rules without any consent from the UK. It does that within the rules the UK agreed to in the past via the Lisbon Treaty etc but the British public never endorsed the Lisbon Treaty.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,028
    edited January 2020

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    That is exactly the plotline of the play King Charles III, the result is the Duchess of Cambridge manoeuvres to force his abdication and she and William take the throne instead
    Doesn’t sound very democratic.
    Polling shows the vast majority of voters want to keep the monarchy but a narrow majority prefer William and Kate to Charles and Camilla as next monarchs
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/make-william-next-king-say-8708800
  • Options
    I think the national newspapers can take "credit" for Brexit, if credit is the right word, for years of drip drip fake news on the EU. They have been sources of mass disinformation, generated in a filthy desire to appeal to people's basest of instincts in their attitudes to anything foreign. A genuine critique of the EU is that it did not work hard enough at rebuttal, and was far too complacent.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    That is exactly the plotline of the play King Charles III, the result is the Duchess of Cambridge manoeuvres to force his abdication and she and William take the throne instead
    Doesn’t sound very democratic.
    Polling shows the vast majority of voters want to keep the monarchy but a narrow majority prefer William and Kate to Charles and Camilla as next monarchs
    Polling also shows Remain ahead of Leave. And what?
  • Options
    nico67 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
    He is right that we could not vote to remove Ursula von der Leyen though. That is a big mistake by the EU. They should have a directly elected President. A few cycles of that and we may want to be part of those big elections.
    But a directly elected President would then be criticized as suggesting the EU is a nation.

    Which would still wind up those who voted Leave . Unless of course it was a UK politician who got the job !

    If the EU doesn't want to be a nation it shouldn't have a Parliament and a President and Commission setting laws.

    If it does want to be a nation it should be democratic.

    Don't take the powers but refuse the democracy.
  • Options
    nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Since your e-mail is stereotyping and unnecessarily perjorative, I think it's best to leave you in your present bewildered state.
    Gallowgate is simply relaying facts which I of course understand isn’t what many Leavers can always grasp !

    UVDL is not a head of state! As the EU isn’t a state ! Those are the facts !
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081

    nico67 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
    He is right that we could not vote to remove Ursula von der Leyen though. That is a big mistake by the EU. They should have a directly elected President. A few cycles of that and we may want to be part of those big elections.
    But a directly elected President would then be criticized as suggesting the EU is a nation.

    Which would still wind up those who voted Leave . Unless of course it was a UK politician who got the job !

    If the EU doesn't want to be a nation it shouldn't have a Parliament and a President and Commission setting laws.

    If it does want to be a nation it should be democratic.

    Don't take the powers but refuse the democracy.
    You do realize that the EU parliament is directly elected and has a veto over the appointment of the “President”...

    Sounds familiar...
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,028

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    That is exactly the plotline of the play King Charles III, the result is the Duchess of Cambridge manoeuvres to force his abdication and she and William take the throne instead
    Doesn’t sound very democratic.
    Polling shows the vast majority of voters want to keep the monarchy but a narrow majority prefer William and Kate to Charles and Camilla as next monarchs
    Polling also shows Remain ahead of Leave. And what?
    Leave won the referendum, a pro Leave PM was re elected and not one poll putting Remain ahead has it much more than 50% ie margin of error
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,012
    Gabs3 said:

    Nigelb said:

    👀👀👀👀

    QAnon Followers Are Drinking Bleach to Avoid Coronavirus

    https://www.menshealth.com/health/a30702086/qanon-drinking-bleach-coronavirus/

    TBF, if the dosage is sufficient, that's 100% effective.
    The side effects are a little extreme, though....
    Worthy of a Darwin Award for anyone who gets the dosage high enough.
    I worry that this is a test by the Russians to see the level of brainwashing. If they can get some to kill themselves they could get them to kill others.
    At certain concentrations bleach is harmless. That Milton stuff you sterilise baby bottles with is basically bleach
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,721
    "Ahead of the UK leaving the European Union on Friday, Remain campaigners are buying and streaming Beethoven’s seminal work – while Leavers champion Dominic Frisby’s ‘17 Million F***-Offs’."

    Says it all really.
    https://www.classicfm.com/composers/beethoven/andre-rieu-ode-to-joy-charts/
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    That is exactly the plotline of the play King Charles III, the result is the Duchess of Cambridge manoeuvres to force his abdication and she and William take the throne instead
    Doesn’t sound very democratic.
    Polling shows the vast majority of voters want to keep the monarchy but a narrow majority prefer William and Kate to Charles and Camilla as next monarchs
    Polling also shows Remain ahead of Leave. And what?
    Leave won the referendum, a pro Leave PM was re elected and not one poll putting Remain ahead has it much more than 50% ie margin of error
    Exactly. Polling is irrelevant.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,028

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    Remind me what happened to a previous monarch with the name Charles. ;)
    Well Charles II sired like a dozen illegitimate children with his mistresses.

    King Charles are randy gits who put their own desires ahead of the country.
    Charles is pro action on climate change, pro heritage conservation, pro helping young people find work through the Princes Trust, pro helping Palestinians, he is actually quite altruistic
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,028

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    That is exactly the plotline of the play King Charles III, the result is the Duchess of Cambridge manoeuvres to force his abdication and she and William take the throne instead
    Doesn’t sound very democratic.
    Polling shows the vast majority of voters want to keep the monarchy but a narrow majority prefer William and Kate to Charles and Camilla as next monarchs
    Polling also shows Remain ahead of Leave. And what?
    Leave won the referendum, a pro Leave PM was re elected and not one poll putting Remain ahead has it much more than 50% ie margin of error
    Exactly. Polling is irrelevant.
    Several polls had Leave ahead before the referendum
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,721

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    Remind me what happened to a previous monarch with the name Charles. ;)
    Well Charles II sired like a dozen illegitimate children with his mistresses.

    King Charles are randy gits who put their own desires ahead of the country.
    'Course he might not be King Charles, could be George.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Because the members of the club agree on a set of rules and members must abide by those rules. You're arguing that competitors who turn up to Wimbledon are forced to play tennis. It is an identity. It doesn't mean we weren't sovereign as we always were.
    The issue with the EU is that its not a club where the members agree on a set of rules and then abide with them. If that was the case there would be less of an issue.

    The EU has powers to create new rules without any consent from the UK. It does that within the rules the UK agreed to in the past via the Lisbon Treaty etc but the British public never endorsed the Lisbon Treaty.
    It's all part of it. We can throw out some stuff and endorse other stuff. We are or were part of the team that created new rules. The Lisbon Treaty was more a fuck up of British politics.

    And now we have left. All perfectly democratic and the actions of a sovereign nation. As David Davis so clearly recognised.
  • Options

    nico67 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
    He is right that we could not vote to remove Ursula von der Leyen though. That is a big mistake by the EU. They should have a directly elected President. A few cycles of that and we may want to be part of those big elections.
    But a directly elected President would then be criticized as suggesting the EU is a nation.

    Which would still wind up those who voted Leave . Unless of course it was a UK politician who got the job !

    If the EU doesn't want to be a nation it shouldn't have a Parliament and a President and Commission setting laws.

    If it does want to be a nation it should be democratic.

    Don't take the powers but refuse the democracy.
    You do realize that the EU parliament is directly elected and has a veto over the appointment of the “President”...

    Sounds familiar...
    Not very familiar no. What's it familiar to in your eyes? Surely not our Parliament which requires the PM to be an elected MP and typically the leader of the party who won the election.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    Remind me what happened to a previous monarch with the name Charles. ;)
    Well Charles II sired like a dozen illegitimate children with his mistresses.

    King Charles are randy gits who put their own desires ahead of the country.
    Charles is pro action on climate change, pro heritage conservation, pro helping young people find work through the Princes Trust, pro helping Palestinians, he is actually quite altruistic
    But unelected.
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    Fucking hell it was a club. We decided to join and then we decided to leave. All perfectly democratic.
    Hilarious isn't it. We have left the club and the headbangers are still ranting about the same simplistic mantras. Do we hear them complain we do not elect the secretary general of the EU? And when di the population of the world vote for Britain to have permanent seat on the security council? Who recalls having a vote for the Secretary general of NATO, or the Supreme Allied Commander (an American FFS)? Don't get me started on the Royal family or the House of Lords!
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081
    I recommend people pay it a visit if they’re ever in the North East.

    https://twitter.com/newcastlecc/status/1223226834168492033?s=21
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    That is exactly the plotline of the play King Charles III, the result is the Duchess of Cambridge manoeuvres to force his abdication and she and William take the throne instead
    Doesn’t sound very democratic.
    Polling shows the vast majority of voters want to keep the monarchy but a narrow majority prefer William and Kate to Charles and Camilla as next monarchs
    Polling also shows Remain ahead of Leave. And what?
    Leave won the referendum, a pro Leave PM was re elected and not one poll putting Remain ahead has it much more than 50% ie margin of error
    It must be very disappointing for you that we should be leaving the EU.
  • Options

    TOPPING said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    Fucking hell it was a club. We decided to join and then we decided to leave. All perfectly democratic.
    Hilarious isn't it. We have left the club and the headbangers are still ranting about the same simplistic mantras. Do we hear them complain we do not elect the secretary general of the EU? And when di the population of the world vote for Britain to have permanent seat on the security council? Who recalls having a vote for the Secretary general of NATO, or the Supreme Allied Commander (an American FFS)? Don't get me started on the Royal family or the House of Lords!
    Typo! I meant the Secretary General of the UN !
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081

    nico67 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
    He is right that we could not vote to remove Ursula von der Leyen though. That is a big mistake by the EU. They should have a directly elected President. A few cycles of that and we may want to be part of those big elections.
    But a directly elected President would then be criticized as suggesting the EU is a nation.

    Which would still wind up those who voted Leave . Unless of course it was a UK politician who got the job !

    If the EU doesn't want to be a nation it shouldn't have a Parliament and a President and Commission setting laws.

    If it does want to be a nation it should be democratic.

    Don't take the powers but refuse the democracy.
    You do realize that the EU parliament is directly elected and has a veto over the appointment of the “President”...

    Sounds familiar...
    Not very familiar no. What's it familiar to in your eyes? Surely not our Parliament which requires the PM to be an elected MP and typically the leader of the party who won the election.
    The PM having to be an MP is not actually a requirement.
  • Options

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    Remind me what happened to a previous monarch with the name Charles. ;)
    Well Charles II sired like a dozen illegitimate children with his mistresses.

    King Charles are randy gits who put their own desires ahead of the country.
    Charles is pro action on climate change, pro heritage conservation, pro helping young people find work through the Princes Trust, pro helping Palestinians, he is actually quite altruistic
    But unelected.
    Indeed we should abolish the monarchy.

    But in the meantime the monarch doesn't actually act via politics. If that ever changes I hope we will abolish the monarchy PDQ.
  • Options

    nico67 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
    He is right that we could not vote to remove Ursula von der Leyen though. That is a big mistake by the EU. They should have a directly elected President. A few cycles of that and we may want to be part of those big elections.
    But a directly elected President would then be criticized as suggesting the EU is a nation.

    Which would still wind up those who voted Leave . Unless of course it was a UK politician who got the job !

    If the EU doesn't want to be a nation it shouldn't have a Parliament and a President and Commission setting laws.

    If it does want to be a nation it should be democratic.

    Don't take the powers but refuse the democracy.
    You do realize that the EU parliament is directly elected and has a veto over the appointment of the “President”...

    Sounds familiar...
    Not very familiar no. What's it familiar to in your eyes? Surely not our Parliament which requires the PM to be an elected MP and typically the leader of the party who won the election.
    The PM having to be an MP is not actually a requirement.
    It de facto is. Our PM's position stems from him leading the party at the last election and winning it. Other PMs who take over midterm do so typically because they take over the leadership of the party that won the last election.

    Where does von der Leyen's mandate come from. Which constituency did she stand in last time? What election did she stand in? What election did she win? How did the voters endorse her?
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081

    nico67 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
    He is right that we could not vote to remove Ursula von der Leyen though. That is a big mistake by the EU. They should have a directly elected President. A few cycles of that and we may want to be part of those big elections.
    But a directly elected President would then be criticized as suggesting the EU is a nation.

    Which would still wind up those who voted Leave . Unless of course it was a UK politician who got the job !

    If the EU doesn't want to be a nation it shouldn't have a Parliament and a President and Commission setting laws.

    If it does want to be a nation it should be democratic.

    Don't take the powers but refuse the democracy.
    You do realize that the EU parliament is directly elected and has a veto over the appointment of the “President”...

    Sounds familiar...
    Not very familiar no. What's it familiar to in your eyes? Surely not our Parliament which requires the PM to be an elected MP and typically the leader of the party who won the election.
    The PM having to be an MP is not actually a requirement.
    Our system essentially functions like the EU does. The Queen appoints a Prime Minister and if Parliament doesn’t like it they can get rid.

    I know you’re going to disagree for the sake of it because it goes against your “tHe EU is UnDeMOCratic” worldview but whatever.
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    That is exactly the plotline of the play King Charles III, the result is the Duchess of Cambridge manoeuvres to force his abdication and she and William take the throne instead
    Doesn’t sound very democratic.
    Polling shows the vast majority of voters want to keep the monarchy but a narrow majority prefer William and Kate to Charles and Camilla as next monarchs
    Polling also shows Remain ahead of Leave. And what?
    Leave won the referendum, a pro Leave PM was re elected and not one poll putting Remain ahead has it much more than 50% ie margin of error
    It must be very disappointing for you that we should be leaving the EU.
    The fanaticism of the convert is always a rather repulsive thing to witness. "The side I have defected to won, so the other roughly 50% can go and fuck themselves while I party with my new friends" Pathetic and shallow.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    nico67 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
    He is right that we could not vote to remove Ursula von der Leyen though. That is a big mistake by the EU. They should have a directly elected President. A few cycles of that and we may want to be part of those big elections.
    But a directly elected President would then be criticized as suggesting the EU is a nation.

    Which would still wind up those who voted Leave . Unless of course it was a UK politician who got the job !

    If the EU doesn't want to be a nation it shouldn't have a Parliament and a President and Commission setting laws.

    If it does want to be a nation it should be democratic.

    Don't take the powers but refuse the democracy.
    You do realize that the EU parliament is directly elected and has a veto over the appointment of the “President”...

    Sounds familiar...
    Not very familiar no. What's it familiar to in your eyes? Surely not our Parliament which requires the PM to be an elected MP and typically the leader of the party who won the election.
    The PM having to be an MP is not actually a requirement.
    Our system essentially functions like the EU does. The Queen appoints a Prime Minister and if Parliament doesn’t like it they can get rid.

    I know you’re going to disagree for the sake of it because it goes against your “tHe EU is UnDeMOCratic” worldview but whatever.
    Our system essentially functions like the EU?

    For starters the EU parliament is subservient to the commission in terms of proposing legislation.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081
    RobD said:

    Our system essentially functions like the EU?

    For starters the EU parliament is subservient to the commission in terms of proposing legislation.

    Pretty much like our parliament then in normal times. The government controls 99% of the legislative agenda.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,259
    You own this now, Brexiteers. Lock, stock and barrel.

    https://twitter.com/patel4witham/status/1223221278859022336
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,314

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    That is exactly the plotline of the play King Charles III, the result is the Duchess of Cambridge manoeuvres to force his abdication and she and William take the throne instead
    Doesn’t sound very democratic.
    Polling shows the vast majority of voters want to keep the monarchy but a narrow majority prefer William and Kate to Charles and Camilla as next monarchs
    Polling also shows Remain ahead of Leave. And what?
    Leave won the referendum, a pro Leave PM was re elected and not one poll putting Remain ahead has it much more than 50% ie margin of error
    It must be very disappointing for you that we should be leaving the EU.
    The fanaticism of the convert is always a rather repulsive thing to witness. "The side I have defected to won, so the other roughly 50% can go and fuck themselves while I party with my new friends" Pathetic and shallow.
    I hope be enjoyed Diane Abbott's Labour Party constituency victory celebrations.

    But on a serious note, as a Diehard Remainer he probably is quite sad at our leaving.
  • Options

    nico67 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    TOPPING said:

    The members.

    Well maybe but the response time between a green deal going collossally belly up and the members actually getting together and reversing some of the worse excesses of it could be extremely slow.

    So slow, indeed that by the time they did it 1. huge damage may have been done to the economy and 2. The rest of the world will have learned a salutary lesson and adjusted their policy appropriately.

    Maybe so but the principle is a sound one. There may well be plenty of bad decisions made by our government that will take time to reverse.
    Indeed but the principle of democracy is that we can at elections reverse any bad decisions, even if it takes time or tough choices to do so.

    That's not possible within the confines of the EU.
    Clearly it was. We democratically voted to leave the thing.
    He is right that we could not vote to remove Ursula von der Leyen though. That is a big mistake by the EU. They should have a directly elected President. A few cycles of that and we may want to be part of those big elections.
    But a directly elected President would then be criticized as suggesting the EU is a nation.

    Which would still wind up those who voted Leave . Unless of course it was a UK politician who got the job !

    If the EU doesn't want to be a nation it shouldn't have a Parliament and a President and Commission setting laws.

    If it does want to be a nation it should be democratic.

    Don't take the powers but refuse the democracy.
    You do realize that the EU parliament is directly elected and has a veto over the appointment of the “President”...

    Sounds familiar...
    Not very familiar no. What's it familiar to in your eyes? Surely not our Parliament which requires the PM to be an elected MP and typically the leader of the party who won the election.
    The PM having to be an MP is not actually a requirement.
    Our system essentially functions like the EU does. The Queen appoints a Prime Minister and if Parliament doesn’t like it they can get rid.

    I know you’re going to disagree for the sake of it because it goes against your “tHe EU is UnDeMOCratic” worldview but whatever.
    You don't understand our system so your misjudgement is forgiven.

    Our Parliament via channels to the Queen chooses the PM from amongst its own number, based on the Commons makeup. The EU does not work that way.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    RobD said:

    Our system essentially functions like the EU?

    For starters the EU parliament is subservient to the commission in terms of proposing legislation.

    Pretty much like our parliament then in normal times. The government controls 99% of the legislative agenda.
    The same except when it is not?

    Another difference is that the leader of the largest party becomes PM. Why didn't the EPP's candidate become commission president?
  • Options
    @Philip_Thompson : Through the council of ministers you numpty, who are either directly and indirectly elected by their countries population. Most of those countries are far more directly democratic then the UK (not difficult). The appointment of her position has no less legitimacy than our system of appointing the PM.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Our system essentially functions like the EU?

    For starters the EU parliament is subservient to the commission in terms of proposing legislation.

    Pretty much like our parliament then in normal times. The government controls 99% of the legislative agenda.
    The same except when it is not?

    Another difference is that the leader of the largest party becomes PM. Why didn't the EPP's candidate become commission president?
    Why did the leader of the party who only got 43% of the vote become Prime Minister?
  • Options
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Our system essentially functions like the EU?

    For starters the EU parliament is subservient to the commission in terms of proposing legislation.

    Pretty much like our parliament then in normal times. The government controls 99% of the legislative agenda.
    The same except when it is not?

    Another difference is that the leader of the largest party becomes PM. Why didn't the EPP's candidate become commission president?
    Juncker at least could claim a mandate.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Our system essentially functions like the EU?

    For starters the EU parliament is subservient to the commission in terms of proposing legislation.

    Pretty much like our parliament then in normal times. The government controls 99% of the legislative agenda.
    The same except when it is not?

    Another difference is that the leader of the largest party becomes PM. Why didn't the EPP's candidate become commission president?
    Why did the leader of the party who only got 43% of the vote become Prime Minister?
    Because it is seats that matter and not votes. In any case, we were discussing the similarities and differences between the UK and EU system.
  • Options
    nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    You own this now, Brexiteers. Lock, stock and barrel.

    https://twitter.com/patel4witham/status/1223221278859022336

    I doubt it . They’ll just keep blaming others if it doesn’t turn out the way they expected . Remainers will get blamed for not believing enough . Then the EU will get blamed for not giving the UK the perfect deal.

    It will never be anything to do with Leavers .
  • Options

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Our system essentially functions like the EU?

    For starters the EU parliament is subservient to the commission in terms of proposing legislation.

    Pretty much like our parliament then in normal times. The government controls 99% of the legislative agenda.
    The same except when it is not?

    Another difference is that the leader of the largest party becomes PM. Why didn't the EPP's candidate become commission president?
    Why did the leader of the party who only got 43% of the vote become Prime Minister?
    Because he overwhelmingly won a majority at the election.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,028
    edited January 2020

    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    I don’t get why Leavers whinge about the EU being like a nation state and then whinge that it isn’t like a nation state ENOUGH with things like a directly elected head of state.

    Ursula von der Leyen is not a head of state.

    Because of the principles of democracy. Who voted for the president of the EU? No one, she wasn't even one of the candidates from the two main groupings. Instead, she was parachuted in at the last minute.
    But she has more democratic legitimacy than the UK's Head of State.

    How many times has Liz Winsdor been elected?
    I'd have more of an issue with that if she was responsible for the direction of the country, and the leader of the body that has sole responsibility for proposing legislation.
    I have a bet with a friend, I reckon within 10 years of Charles becoming our Head of State he refuses to give Royal Assent to a bill he doesn't like.

    Then what happens. We cannot vote him out can we?
    Remind me what happened to a previous monarch with the name Charles. ;)
    Well Charles II sired like a dozen illegitimate children with his mistresses.

    King Charles are randy gits who put their own desires ahead of the country.
    Charles is pro action on climate change, pro heritage conservation, pro helping young people find work through the Princes Trust, pro helping Palestinians, he is actually quite altruistic
    But unelected.
    So what, 69% want to keep the monarchy to only 21% who want a republic so it is a non issue, support for the monarchy is one of the few issues most of us agree on

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Our system essentially functions like the EU?

    For starters the EU parliament is subservient to the commission in terms of proposing legislation.

    Pretty much like our parliament then in normal times. The government controls 99% of the legislative agenda.
    The same except when it is not?

    Another difference is that the leader of the largest party becomes PM. Why didn't the EPP's candidate become commission president?
    Juncker at least could claim a mandate.
    No point even comparing democratic legitimacy when our democracy is ridiculously undemocratic.

    I know you disagree but you’re looking at the EU through the eyes of our system.

    Those like me who thinks that British democracy is a complete sham are going to think otherwise.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Our system essentially functions like the EU?

    For starters the EU parliament is subservient to the commission in terms of proposing legislation.

    Pretty much like our parliament then in normal times. The government controls 99% of the legislative agenda.
    The same except when it is not?

    Another difference is that the leader of the largest party becomes PM. Why didn't the EPP's candidate become commission president?
    Why did the leader of the party who only got 43% of the vote become Prime Minister?
    Because it is seats that matter and not votes. In any case, we were discussing the similarities and differences between the UK and EU system.
    Well the answer is the same. “Because that’s how the system works”.

    Just because it’s different doesn’t mean its less democratic.

    Our democracy is a sham after all.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Our system essentially functions like the EU?

    For starters the EU parliament is subservient to the commission in terms of proposing legislation.

    Pretty much like our parliament then in normal times. The government controls 99% of the legislative agenda.
    The same except when it is not?

    Another difference is that the leader of the largest party becomes PM. Why didn't the EPP's candidate become commission president?
    Why did the leader of the party who only got 43% of the vote become Prime Minister?
    Because it is seats that matter and not votes. In any case, we were discussing the similarities and differences between the UK and EU system.
    Well the answer is the same. “Because that’s how the system works”.

    Just because it’s different doesn’t mean its less democratic.

    Our democracy is a sham after all.
    Ah, so they aren't essentially the same then. :)
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,081

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Our system essentially functions like the EU?

    For starters the EU parliament is subservient to the commission in terms of proposing legislation.

    Pretty much like our parliament then in normal times. The government controls 99% of the legislative agenda.
    The same except when it is not?

    Another difference is that the leader of the largest party becomes PM. Why didn't the EPP's candidate become commission president?
    Why did the leader of the party who only got 43% of the vote become Prime Minister?
    Because he overwhelmingly won a majority at the election.
    A majority of seats not votes.

    Many would argue that is not democracy.

    I know you disagree but you must recognize many people do agree.
This discussion has been closed.