[Politics] Brexit

[GT49er]

Our system is much imitated and has bought freedom with it. I suspect you would appreciate our system more if it were lost and a generation had to fight and die for it once again.

Absolutely this!

 

[Baldseagull]

This thread has dealt with the EU's democratic legitimacy before, it's an area that even ardent Euro federalists accept is a weakness. To argue there is not marks you out as some kind of zealot.

Any debate on the matter should be about what the pro EU supporters would do to resolve it. For example the Robert Schuman institute has its view (Robert Schuman was a founding father of the EEC and a sponsor of its progress to the EU).

http://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/eur...w-do-we-solve-the-european-democratic-problem

You're fighting out a battle that has been lost long ago, so dry those baby blues and share your vision on how you would make the EU more democratic, accountable and relevant to EU citizens.

Calm down dear, the geezer asked when he had a chance to vote for EU Council, so I told him.

 

[Baldseagull]

It's down to perception I guess. I have lived in different places around the world and have many times been told of the esteem with which British democracy is held. Our system is much imitated and has bought freedom with it. I suspect you would appreciate our system more if it were lost and a generation had to fight and die for it once again.

A possibility more likely in a divided Europe.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

It's down to perception I guess. I have lived in different places around the world and have many times been told of the esteem with which British democracy is held. Our system is much imitated and has bought freedom with it. I suspect you would appreciate our system more if it were lost and a generation had to fight and die for it once again.

There's a reason that Westminster is called the Mother of Parliaments and I greatly admire aspects of the British parliamentary system but have serious doubts about the arrangements for electing people to serve in it. It is difficult to defend an arrangement which means it takes many times more people to elect, say, a UKIP MP than a Conservative or Labour one. People who do so defend it seem either to have an aura of expediency about them (the system favours the party they happen to support) or they have fallen into the trap of thinking that everything about the UK is better than everything about everywhere else. It does us no favours.

Regarding imitation, our FPTP voting system - which is what we are talking about - is not so heavily imitated these days. Some big-population countries - the USA and India - have it but most that do are much smaller than the UK. And a number have abandoned it. I wish we would.

 

[5ways]

Maybe in the latter stages of the thread,many of the original Remain in the early threads have accepted the result or in part,or stopped contributing altogether...leaving us with the dregs or was that the cream,i'd say the cream to be fair.

Where is [MENTION=25549]5ways[/MENTION] [MENTION=225]Hamilton[/MENTION] or [MENTION=17963]Hampster Gull[/MENTION] ALL Remain big guns-appologies if i have not mentioned others

Still sulking

 

[melias shoes]

Well said that man. We the people also had the chance to change the FPTP system .. but decided no to, by a large majority, in a referendum. Not so sure we would ever get a vote in how the electoral system in the EU works though.

Not a chance. We just get legislation after legislation forced upon us whether we want/like it or not. EU democracy.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

There's a reason that Westminster is called the Mother of Parliaments and I greatly admire aspects of the British parliamentary system but have serious doubts about the arrangements for electing people to serve in it. It is difficult to defend an arrangement which means it takes many times more people to elect, say, a UKIP MP than a Conservative or Labour one. People who do so defend it seem either to have an aura of expediency about them (the system favours the party they happen to support) or they have fallen into the trap of thinking that everything about the UK is better than everything about everywhere else. It does us no favours.

Regarding imitation, our FPTP voting system - which is what we are talking about - is not so heavily imitated these days. Some big-population countries - the USA and India - have it but most that do are much smaller than the UK. And a number have abandoned it. I wish we would.

HA HA, YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP unlike the EU BEUROCRATS THAT ARE UNELECTED
regards
DR

 

[beorhthelm]

...It is difficult to defend an arrangement which means it takes many times more people to elect, say, a UKIP MP than a Conservative or Labour one.

this simply isn't true, you're making on a view that counts the national voting for a party, when our system is based on constituencies. at a constituency level, you simply need more votes than any other candidate, the same for any party in a given seat. the problem for UKIP as it was before for Greens and others, is they are a fringe protest party without a core vote anywhere. most of their issues are accepted in reduced form by the major parties, and the bulk of voters aren't interested in candidates/party that see their single issue as the answer to everything.

 

[beorhthelm]

Look, it has equal status as the other two branches.

really? see that green line from the Parliament to the Commission? notice an absence of reciprocal line the other way? notice the purple "proposes" lines only between the council, commission and initiating legislation? that's because all legislation must be proposed through the Commission, nothing can come from the floor of the parliament. you might think that's fine, but its not very equal.

that diagram also highlights the gross over complication of the EU governance, four separate bodies with three "presidents", in addition to national governments and judiciary. cull that down to two and you might have a sensible process.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

this simply isn't true, you're making on a view that counts the national voting for a party, when our system is based on constituencies. at a constituency level, you simply need more votes than any other candidate, the same for any party in a given seat. the problem for UKIP as it was before for Greens and others, is they are a fringe protest party without a core vote anywhere. most of their issues are accepted in reduced form by the major parties, and the bulk of voters aren't interested in candidates/party that see their single issue as the answer to everything.

Semantics I’m afraid. General elections are national events and as you know I was making a national point by drawing attention to the fact that the number of votes cast nationally are not reflected in the representation in the national parliament.

I can’t quite follow parts of your post but I think you are saying that as parties other than Tory and Labour are simply concerned with single issues (or fringe protests) they do not have the support of the bulk of the voters. You also say that parties such as UKIP, the LibDems and the Greens do not have a core vote.

All of this is quite wrong. I’ve mentioned the injustices done to UKIP so let’s look at the 2010 elections.

Tories 10,703,654 votes cast (36.1%). Number of MPs: 306
Labour 8,606,517 votes cast (29%). Number of MPs: 258
Liberal Democrat: 6,836,248 votes cast (23%). Number of MPs: 57

From this we can see that the popular vote for the LibDems was within six percentage points of Labour's and yet Labour finished up with over 200 more MPs (258 to 57). I suggest that the reason you don't object to this scam is that you vote for one of the two parties that benefit from it. Understandable, but democratic perfection it surely ain't.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Look, it has equal status as the other two branches. Is it perfect? No, probably not. But you are the one that pissed their pants and ran off crying to their safe space with a referendum instead of being a grown up and facing the issue and campaigning and changing the inadequacies of the system.

can we have a pie /flow chart as well
regards
DR

 

[GT49er]

A possibility more likely in a divided Europe.

Yes, I seem to remember we were told that before the referendum too. Project Fear, I think it was called. Hands up all those who've already installed their Anderson shelter..........

 

[GT49er]

Geez! With a clusterf**k of an organisational chart like that, I'm even happier we voted to leave than I was yesterday!

 

[portslade seagull]

Yes, I seem to remember we were told that before the referendum too. Project Fear, I think it was called. Hands up all those who've already installed their Anderson shelter..........

Oh no we aren't going to war are we

 

[beorhthelm]

Semantics I’m afraid. General elections are national events and as you know I was making a national point by drawing attention to the fact that the number of votes cast nationally are not reflected in the representation in the national parliament.

its not semantics, you're deliberately miscasting and mis-analysing the voting results. the system we have holds elections for each constituency, not a a single national poll. the fact they all happen on the same day doesnt alter that basic mechanics of our elections. your looking at national results then complaining that you need more vote to gain a seat, when any candidate, Green, Labour, Liberal, Independent, Tory or UKIP, can win for about 20k votes or ~30% the electorate in a single seat (there abouts due to turnout, less in some seats).

the point about "core" is that most parties dont have a core support nationally, they are spread out a few thousand in each seat. the Liberals best show this, they used to have core votes in Scotland and the west, and grew out of there into the rest of the country, only to retreat when there vote slipped away, back to Labour and Conservatives. Labour's core is in the cities, Conservatives in the shires, they know they'll get 160-200 seats and fight over the rest. this is an outcome of peoples support for the parties and the whole balance of their policies, not the electoral system. if UKIP (or Greens) offered a broad based platform of policies that addressed problems, rather than applying the same solution to everything, or focused on issue in particular areas, they might have more success (like the SNP have). UKIP are a bunch of Tory rejects trying to appeal to working class voters on immigration, dont blame the electoral system for their failure to get more seats.

 

[portslade seagull]

Look, it has equal status as the other two branches. Is it perfect? No, probably not. But you are the one that pissed their pants and ran off crying to their safe space with a referendum instead of being a grown up and facing the issue and campaigning and changing the inadequacies of the system.

They have certainly made a few jobs for the boys. No wonder the EU needs sooooo much money. They have loads of wages to pay and by the time that is done there is nothing left. quango's for quango's sake by the look of it

 

[GT49er]

Oh no we aren't going to war are we

No, we're OK. Blair's not in charge any more..........

 

[Lincoln Imp]

its not semantics, you're deliberately miscasting and mis-analysing the voting results. the system we have holds elections for each constituency, not a a single national poll. the fact they all happen on the same day doesnt alter that basic mechanics of our elections. your looking at national results then complaining that you need more vote to gain a seat, when any candidate, Green, Labour, Liberal, Independent, Tory or UKIP, can win for about 20k votes or ~30% the electorate in a single seat (there abouts due to turnout, less in some seats).

the point about "core" is that most parties dont have a core support nationally, they are spread out a few thousand in each seat. the Liberals best show this, they used to have core votes in Scotland and the west, and grew out of there into the rest of the country, only to retreat when there vote slipped away, back to Labour and Conservatives. Labour's core is in the cities, Conservatives in the shires, they know they'll get 160-200 seats and fight over the rest. this is an outcome of peoples support for the parties and the whole balance of their policies, not the electoral system. if UKIP (or Greens) offered a broad based platform of policies that addressed problems, rather than applying the same solution to everything, or focused on issue in particular areas, they might have more success (like the SNP have). UKIP are a bunch of Tory rejects trying to appeal to working class voters on immigration, dont blame the electoral system for their failure to get more seats.

I am not deliberately mis-analysing anything; I'm just having a different view to yours.

I'd say that FPTP would be appropriate if we had a political system in this country that remained really true to its constituency-based roots but I'd argue that the local role of a member has largely been subsumed by the colossal growth in the power of the national parties. There are exceptions (Brighton Pav is one) where people vote for an individual but by and large they now vote for a national party, often without even knowing the name of the local candidate. In turn, MPs, even 'good constituency MPs', largely vote according to how their party wants them to rather than according to their own beliefs or those of their constituents. In these circumstances it seems reasonable to me to consider a voting system that reflects the nationalised reality.

I accept it's a pretty nuanced subject though. And I enjoyed your description of UKIP and its immigrant fixation. It didn't serve them badly though, at the last election or the referendum.

 

[beorhthelm]

I am not deliberately mis-analysing anything; I'm just having a different view to yours.

I'd say that FPTP would be appropriate if we had a political system in this country that remained really true to its constituency-based roots but I'd argue that the local role of a member has largely been subsumed by the colossal growth in the power of the national parties.

well fair enough and we agree there, and i rile against the "FPTP favors big parties, so change FPTP" because the alternatives proposed will put more power to the national party and central office. unfortunately i dont know what the solution is to improve democracy and participation.

 

[GT49er]

Indeed and it should be looked at and optimised. But that is no reason for all the Brexit snowflakes to piss themselves and go running home crying as it is not as fair as they like.
I thought we were supposed to be a nation that stood up for itself and fights for what is right? Not one that surrenders and runs off if things are not to its liking. Oh well, times change.

What a strange and utterly delusional interpretation of events (which you don't like). It seems that the remain 'snowflakes' (to use your derogatory language, which seems to be your preferred method of discussion) are the ones who are pissing themselves and crying (this doesn't apply to most remainers, such as the current Labour leadership, who have sensibly accepted the result).
We, on the other hand, are a nation that has stood up for itself and our rights - and in doing so last summer we've told the EU that we're not having its policies and dictats forced on us any more. Simples. How you deal with it is your problem, though.