Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Chris Dolan posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

hmm at least we, the UK population, can vote the UK parliament loons out.

unless they change the law to prevent it of course 

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

As I noted above, I thought that was something they did elsewhere.

ATB from George

I don't usually get involved in politics on audio forums... But with the way the current government are going they ARE arguably trying to reduce democracy: rejigging and reducing the numbers of politicians which just happens to help keep the balance in their direction and removing powers from House of Lords because they disagree with government policies are just two ways things are changing which potentially may reduce democracy in this country of ours...

Frenchnaim posted:

.................. the bureaucrats in Brussels or elsewhere don't make decisions. Basic knowledge of how the European institutions work should be required before a referendum takes place.

 

Whilst the above statement is correct in the political sense, it's the bureaucrats in Brussels who put the decisions of the EU Parliament into effect - in the form of EU Commission Regulations.

These idiots make plenty of stupid decisions when drafting the Regulations. So they usually manage to make a bloody mess of it !

Which is irritating at least, and incredibly costly and time consuming to put right, if you ever manage to get it put right.

"Just because it doesn't work, doesn't mean we are going to put it right" or words to that effect came out of the mouth of one such bureaucrat recently !!!!!

Hungryhalibut posted:

I was simply saying that the European Parliament is a useful moderation on our Government's wilder ideas. Without the Working Time Directive, for example, one could see the UK free marketeers working their staff around the clock. I never said anything about not trusting the electorate, despite so many seeming happy to swallow the Daily Mail's bile hook, line and sinker. 

I'm with HH on this. An effective democracy is one with plenty of checks and balances.  On some issues the EU Council, Commission and Parliament provide a moderating effect over national governments.  

Sovereignty, democracy - it is all so simple!

I assume that all here who think we are ruled by a Brussels bureaucracy and who think the 'British' should take their sovereignty back are also in favour of devolution to Scotland, etc, as a similar matter of principle. Of course it may be that Manchester would prefer to be sovereign so that those pesky bureaucrats in Whitehall stop telling the city what to do.

And what exactly is democracy? There are a number of democratic models and personally I don't think we have the most suitable for the 21st century, which is why I favour and voted for proportional representation. Such a system would better reflect the views of the British electorate in voting in a new Parliament. But apparently we already have the ideal democracy through which the electorate expresses its views and we consequently have a majority Conservative government - funny how they don't represent the majority of the population in our democratic model!

Democracy and sovereignty are not absolutes and they never have been - they have always been about pragmatic compromises. Those who think that our sovereignty will have free unfettered expression if we leave the UE are deluded, in my view!

We chose to keep first past the post in a referendum in 2011. The British Electorate was consulted and spoke.

That itself is democracy at work. I was out of step. I voted for PR ...

Democracy is the thing that Britain first implemented in the modern era and still does best ...

ATB from George

MDS posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

I was simply saying that the European Parliament is a useful moderation on our Government's wilder ideas. Without the Working Time Directive, for example, one could see the UK free marketeers working their staff around the clock. I never said anything about not trusting the electorate, despite so many seeming happy to swallow the Daily Mail's bile hook, line and sinker. 

I'm with HH on this. An effective democracy is one with plenty of checks and balances.  On some issues the EU Council, Commission and Parliament provide a moderating effect over national governments.  

We need to preserve the “in house” check of the second chamber, rather than farm it out to those who have proven that they do democracy less well ...

Oh, George. Are you really suggesting that the unelected House Of Lords, increasingly made up of political appointees, is an effective counter-weight to the House of Commons and more democratic than the European Parliament?     

Mike

No I am suggesting that we have a British debate about it, and let the British people speak on the issue.

We do not need to let Continentals rule Britain but sort our own governmental issues out for ourselves.

Just seen a piece of news that will be a big boost for the campaign to stay in the EU: Chris Grayling has announced he will be campaigning for exit.  

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

No I am suggesting that we have a British debate about it, and let the British people speak on the issue.

We do not need to let Continentals rule Britain but sort our own governmental issues out for ourselves.

Thanks, George. I would certainly agree with you that there is plenty of room to improve our system.

Mike 

And who and of what significance is Grayling? An individual person is not the point. 

We are discussing a point that is far above any single individual, or cabal.

MDS posted:

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

No I am suggesting that we have a British debate about it, and let the British people speak on the issue.

We do not need to let Continentals rule Britain but sort our own governmental issues out for ourselves.

Thanks, George. I would certainly agree with you that there is plenty of room to improve our system.

Mike 

No syetem, even the British system of democracy, is beyond improvement with the support of the electorate

"a successful vote to leave is now the only option open to ensure the fundamental reform of the EU on which the Government should have embarked. An express wish of the British voters to leave will have a huge impact on voters and even governments in other EU countries. It’s not inconceivable that, as we press for an orderly withdrawal, other EU countries will join with us in negotiating their exit. We must be prepared for this wider scenario and respond in the best interests of Britain and Europe."

Frank Field in the Spectator. I find myself agreeing with him as I suspect that the EU as stands is beyond meaningful reform. Further I suspect that ultimately it will encounter some crisis (or combination of multiple crisis) that it cannot address in its current state and will fail in a rather messy manner. Probably better for us to vote out and kick start a meaningful process of redesigning the EU to address the challenges of the 21st century. 

Willy.

Cdb posted:

Sovereignty, democracy - it is all so simple!

I assume that all here who think we are ruled by a Brussels bureaucracy and who think the 'British' should take their sovereignty back are also in favour of devolution to Scotland, etc, as a similar matter of principle. Well the SNP are campaigning to "Stay" so I think that trashes any need for for a "similar matter of principle"  Of course it may be that Manchester would prefer to be sovereign so that those pesky bureaucrats in Whitehall stop telling the city what to do.

And what exactly is democracy? There are a number of democratic models and personally I don't think we have the most suitable for the 21st century, which is why I favour and voted for proportional representation. Such a system would better reflect the views of the British electorate in voting in a new Parliament. But apparently we already have the ideal democracy through which the electorate expresses its views and we consequently have a majority Conservative government - funny how they don't represent the majority of the population in our democratic model!

Democracy and sovereignty are not absolutes and they never have been - they have always been about pragmatic compromises. Those who think that our sovereignty will have free unfettered expression if we leave the UE are deluded, in my view!

MDS posted:

Oh, George. Are you really suggesting that the unelected House Of Lords, increasingly made up of political appointees, is an effective counter-weight to the House of Commons and more democratic than the European Parliament?     

Mike

Unfortunately it's not just the European Parliament who provide these so called checks and balances(BTW, is Nigel Farage a member of this said  European Parliament ?), but it's the associated Commission that is very effective at screwing things up to suit themselves. I can't recall voting any of them into office.

Willy posted:

"a successful vote to leave is now the only option open to ensure the fundamental reform of the EU on which the Government should have embarked. An express wish of the British voters to leave will have a huge impact on voters and even governments in other EU countries. It’s not inconceivable that, as we press for an orderly withdrawal, other EU countries will join with us in negotiating their exit. We must be prepared for this wider scenario and respond in the best interests of Britain and Europe."

Frank Field in the Spectator. I find myself agreeing with him as I suspect that the EU as stands is beyond meaningful reform. Further I suspect that ultimately it will encounter some crisis (or combination of multiple crisis) that it cannot address in its current state and will fail in a rather messy manner. Probably better for us to vote out and kick start a meaningful process of redesigning the EU to address the challenges of the 21st century. 

Willy.

Quite!

The whole EU project is finished. 

A frightening prospect!

We may end up with an unfettered buffoon (Boris is obviously posturing to make as big an impact as he can when he declares his 'out' position) as our PM and an even more frightening prospect (I hardly thought it possible until very recently) of Donald Trump heading the most powerful country in the so called 'Free World'.

Heaven help us and the World.

An election will sort it out ...

Fear not. the Brits are no fools

Unfortunately, I don't have your confidence in 'us Brits'. After all, we did elect our current unsavoury lot into Government.

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Dear Don,

I am all for democracy. I am also all in favour of cutting down the number of levels of Government we have. Two seems ideal to me. Westminster and County Council.

 

I have never been happy about the business of being governed by this unelected european collective. We joined the EEC in the 70's as a trading association, before that we were part of EFTA (European Free Trade Association). I was keen at the time to become a part of the EEC but never imagined it would turn into this political quagmire we now find ourselves in. I want to be self governed by the politicians elected by the people of this country and not have to have every decision or policy vetted and vetoed by these none elected bureaucrats because it does not fit their ideology of an ever expanding european collective which serves only to massage their own ego's on the world stage at our expense anyway.

Give us your £55m per day and we'll give you nothing in your favour in return. We are perfectly capable of standing on our own two feet and surviving with out being hog tied by those who never show us favour anyway. We get far less out than we put in.

God did not put the English channel there for nothing.  It saved us in 1940 from being governed from the other side of it and that is the position we should return to now.

Home rule from UK, for the UK first and foremost.

Ken

Hmack posted:

Unfortunately, I don't have your confidence in 'us Brits'. After all, we did elect our current unsavoury lot into Government.

That is one heck of a statement if you consider the implications. 

It implies that the electorate of the UK cannot be relied on to elect a democratically minded government. 

If that really is your view - through far from mine - I would ask the question, “What substitute you would use to select a government for the UK?" Presumably the electorate would not be involved as being untrustworthy, so we get back to the old notion that "might is right,” and World Wars have been fought to undo those who considered that "might really is right."

We are all entitled to disagree with the current elected administration and make manifest our disagreement by voting otherwise at the next election. On the whole this system has served the UK better than countries run on one party lines.

ATB from George

I attended this address by Sir Stephen Wall at Bristol UWE on 20 January. Although he's very much pro-EU, his presentation was most informative. The subject was 'Why do we British find the EU so hard to swallow?'. I recommend anyone who wishes to gain a more informed view to listen to it on replay. I'm quite Eurosceptic but this has made me think.

http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/whatson/.../sirstephenwall.aspx

George,

As I am sure you realised, my last post was somewhat of a throwaway comment, and more than slightly (but not entirely) tongue-in-cheek.

The underlying problem here is a combination of the British Parliamentary system, which far from being a system that we should acclaim as being the 'mother' of parliaments around the world, is a relic of the past that should be changed as soon as possible, and the apathy of the 'great' British voting public. With our system of parliament, it is possible for an unpopular (with the majority of people in the country)  government to gain absolute power and claim absolute mandates for its entire manifesto, with 35 or so percent of the votes cast in an election. We live in a time where distrust of Government (of either persuasion) has led to an appalling apathy amongst the electorate, and allows situations of this sort to come to fruition. This is further exacerbated by the power of the popular press, most of which is owned by powerful moguls with vested interests in helping to forge the popular vote in the direction that suits them best.

The only true form of democracy would be achieved by the introduction of an element of proportional representation. Then, we would no longer require the parachute of a second unelected house to help reign in the more extreme elements of the 'elected' governments' manifestos. 

Many argue that such a Government would lead to chaos and indecision. I have never really bought into this argument, but even then. so be it. Better this than the current policies which help to divided our nation, and implement policies that are blatantly designed to benefit the privileged few.     

I 

Hmack posted:

The only true form of democracy would be achieved by the introduction of an element of proportional representation. Then, we would no longer require the parachute of a second unelected house to help reign in the more extreme elements of the 'elected' governments' manifestos. 

 

But the people rejected the idea in 2011

Indeed.

Another example of the apathy of the great British voting public, and also an example of the scaremongering employed by those who wished to defend the status quo. Although my leaning (in a political sense) is somewhat to the left of centre (there, I've given it away), I place a large amount of blame for the rejection on the position taken by the then Labour party.