Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by MatrimSaric, Mar 7, 2016.
I think it will destroy the tory party completely and there won't be a comeback tour....ever
Honestly....if it happens, me, a committed remainer, will hand on heart believe it was worth it.
The vast majority of the population don't have the slightest interest in politics, it's just something that happens in the background and rarely intrudes into their lives most of the time. More people are interested in who is winning in the the X factor and the Great British bake-off than in anything Juncker might have to say.
Well worth a read.
No deal exit what next?
Just remember people this is not just EU
This is a UK global problem, 50% + of our exports are not to the EU
No Customs Agreements at all on leaving
How long before Martial Law?
Taking back control, how good does that feel?
Not to worry, I know it doesn't seem quite cricket old sport. Young Boris seems a plucky sort, old chap. However, you're forgetting he's British! Inconvenience? Poppycock. He's just the sort of hero we need...
I think I need to go and have a lie down.....
The British problem is that the people voted for something that there was no political party to support because both parties are essentially the same.
There will be a lot of posturing, everything will remain undecided until the last minute, and then just when you would think everything is lost, when the situation seems deadlocked, then an agreement is likely to be made.
It always ends up in compromise.
And the people suffer.
In the spirit of Brexit I'm going to cancel my Netflix subscription and negotiate with each film producer separately to get the best deal for me and my family
Some excellent analysis.
Michael Dougan is just another propagandist - EU Monnet Professor paid by the EU.
I thought that Dougan was too dismissive of the undemocratic nature of the EU. While he correctly notes that the European Council has no legislative power, he fails to stress that only the European Commission may initiate legislation. With the exception of the the President of the Commission (who is elected by the EU Parliament) none of Commissioners responsible for proposing new legislation are elected to office. Moreover, each Commissioner swears "to be completely independent in carrying out my responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union." In other words, the EU Parliamentarians directly elected by the citizens of their respective states have no substantive legislative powers. Instead, these rubber-stampers are beholden to two unelected bodies (the European Council and the European Commission) that effectively propose, draft, and pass legislation in the EU's best interest.
Not sure how you arrive at the conclusion the European Council is unelected, each member has been elected by the citizens of their respective countries, and therefore represent the interests of those countries.
Unless the respective members of the council (see link) managed to become Prime, minister or president of their respective countries without anybody voting for them?
The President of the Commission leads a cabinet of Commissioners, referred to as the college, collectively accountable to the European Parliament, which is directly elected by EU citizens.
Anyway I suggest you take up your democratic concerns with Mr Dougan, I'm sure he could do with a laugh.
You really need to understand the basic foundation of freedom, perhaps Klaus Vaclav can explain it to you why the EU is just a new commie regime with new clothes...
In a parliamentary democracy, heads of state, together with their cabinets, etc., constitute the executive branch, while parliament is the legislative branch. In the EU, the (unelected) European Commission effectively functions as the legislative body, and takes it directon from the European Council, which is the de facto executive branch.
Edit: Re your point about the members of the Council being elected by the citizens of their country, this is largely true. However, in some cases where a proportional electoral system is used, it is possible for the head of political party to become head of state without being elected to office at all. Ignoring these rare cases, the fact remains that most heads of state are elected by the constituents of one riding. At best, they are elected by a majority of a country's citizens. In neither case, however, are heads of state required to represent the concerns of those who did not vote for them. IOW, those who did not support the party/platform of a current head of state have no real voice in the European Council.
Unlike in a parliamentary democracy where parliament, and elected parliamentarians, propose, debate, and enact law (the Senate/House of Lords rarely overturns a parliamentary vote in favour of a particular bill), EU parliamentarians may not propose legislation. IOW, EU parliamentarians are more like the largely powerless Canadian Senators, or British peers, namely a rubber-stamp brigade.
Edit: AFAIK, there is no way for a LibDem, SNP, or Labour MEP to propose legislation in the EU Parliament unless their party is currently governing (the UK)--a virtual impossilibity in the case of the SNP. Indeed, there is no way for a Conservative MEP to propose a bill, independent or otherwise, in the EU Parliament. That's because the EUP isn't a law-making body.
Maybe you are right. Maybe my idea of democracy is a little dated for modern tastes.
MinBrex current staffing level: 482. No of staff who've left: 124. Now there's a happy place
Davis in 'Broadcast' mode only, not listening to advice.
This comment from the FT yesterday:
"You enter a basement dungeon of your own accord (referendum), slam the self-locking door shut (the leave vote), drop your trousers, bend over and strap yourself into conveniently placed restraints (trigger Article 50), throw some choice insults at the ominous hooded figure in the corner (Lancaster House speech), and now you expect that the next scene will involve a muscle-relaxing massage that leaves you refreshed and energised."
Where have the nation states of Europe gone?
Peter Hitchens, The Mail on Sunday conservative columnist (and former "International Socialist"), likens the EU to the continuation of Germany by other means. I mention this here, because he makes some insightful observations about the recent history of Europe, and the rise of "limited sovereignty," a term Hitchens attributes to by Richard von Kuehlmann, Germany’s foreign minister towards the end of the Great War. Although the concept has always existed, he compares Europe's current political landscape to an earlier era where Germany granted quasi independence to former areas of the Russia Empire in return for complying with Berlin's interests.
Hitchens has some interesting comments regarding regions as disparate as Kosovo, Catalonia, and Scotland. I think that his post is good background for a more recent interview where he discusses the fate of post-Brexit Britain. If you can get past the provocative sound bite that the "UK is in a pre civli war condition," he proposes a workable compromise that could save the Tories from themselves. He contends that his proposal would not only keep Britannia afloat in the short term, but also would allow much needed time for the country to regain its legislative independence without recourse to poorly conceived, eleventh-hour measures.
I am not sure we would go as far as civil war, but we are in for a very rough ride, ALL political parties have covered themselves in shame over this, instead of just putting all party affiliation to one side until Brexit is done and finished they continue to count coupe on each other and we are now a laughing stock in Europe, the Tories have lost the plot completely and are so out of touch it is beyond understanding, it seems they want us to pile in as a nation, and by the looks of it we will, how much though is the question, will we be able to ride the wave and come out in the end in a fairly sustainable state, or is this really what some have said, the beginning of a very ignoble end to GB? either way we had one chance to get it right, we blew it so now we need to brace for whats coming. and from what I have seen it aint pretty.
What do you think of an "interim" Norway option? Is it a reasonable compromise? Does it adequately address immigration and economic concerns? Is there much appetite for this approach on the continent?