FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Democracy ?
Democracy ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I don't know if this is exactly correct but on Radio five today some one said UKIP got 4 Million Vites at the last election and have one M P !
Labour got 8 Million Votes and have over 200 M Ps .
Yes I know this is our first past the post System !
But surely with all the Aguments about Democracy over Brexit , our Voting System needs severely looking at !
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't know if this is exactly correct but on Radio five today some one said UKIP got 4 Million Vites at the last election and have one M P !
Labour got 8 Million Votes and have over 200 M Ps .
Yes I know this is our first past the post System !
But surely with all the Aguments about Democracy over Brexit , our Voting System needs severely looking at !
"
We did, we chose, we've got first past the post.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't think we need to change the system for national referendums. But I do believe we should have adopted PR in elections years ago."
But the country voted against it... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"maybe we could have a referendum...?"
We did:
On 5 May 2011;
Or did you miss it?
The electorate was asked if they preferred the first past the post system, or the " Altrnative vote" system ( which, strictly, is not Proportional representation".)
The result was " no change" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"maybe we could have a referendum...?
We did:
On 5 May 2011;
Or did you miss it?
The electorate was asked if they preferred the first past the post system, or the " Altrnative vote" system ( which, strictly, is not Proportional representation".)
The result was " no change""
no I didn't miss it..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I don't think we need to change the system for national referendums. But I do believe we should have adopted PR in elections years ago.
But the country voted against it..."
No it was never on Offer !
It was a complicated second preference system . P R hasn't been offered , as all party's are Scared of True Democracy ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"maybe we could have a referendum...?
We did:
On 5 May 2011;
Or did you miss it?
The electorate was asked if they preferred the first past the post system, or the " Altrnative vote" system ( which, strictly, is not Proportional representation".)
The result was " no change"
no I didn't miss it..
"
Phew thank you 
Thought I was losing the memory a bit then !
But it just shows how crafty the politicians are if Thier are Actually People in this Country who think we had a referendum on some thing we didn't  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't think we need to change the system for national referendums. But I do believe we should have adopted PR in elections years ago.
But the country voted against it..."
No!
We have never been offered a PR system, what we were offered in 2011 was an AV system which is not PR!
A pure PR system requires the election of all representatives by way of 'party or alliance lists', where the total vote is divided between the seats and candidates are selected in order from the lists according to how many votes were cast for the particular party or alliance, this system has the obvious drawback of not allowing voters to vote for individuals and candidates elected are not answerable to the voters but to the parties that select them.
The best working PR model is the STV (single transferable vote) where constituencies have multiple seats and to get elected a candidate needs to poll 1 vote more than the number of votes cast divided by the number of seats available.
The AV (alternative vote) system has voters list their preference in order (1,2,3...) instead of voting with an X. Which is what we were offered, and is nothing more than a modified first past the post system where the candidate polling the lowest vote is eliminated and their votes are then redistributed to their second (third, fouth...) choice until a candidate polls 50%+1 of the total votes cast. This system does not solve the inequity of the first past the post system but brushes it under the carpet and gives an illusion of all votes being equal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I don't think we need to change the system for national referendums. But I do believe we should have adopted PR in elections years ago.
But the country voted against it...
No!
We have never been offered a PR system, what we were offered in 2011 was an AV system which is not PR!
A pure PR system requires the election of all representatives by way of 'party or alliance lists', where the total vote is divided between the seats and candidates are selected in order from the lists according to how many votes were cast for the particular party or alliance, this system has the obvious drawback of not allowing voters to vote for individuals and candidates elected are not answerable to the voters but to the parties that select them.
The best working PR model is the STV (single transferable vote) where constituencies have multiple seats and to get elected a candidate needs to poll 1 vote more than the number of votes cast divided by the number of seats available.
The AV (alternative vote) system has voters list their preference in order (1,2,3...) instead of voting with an X. Which is what we were offered, and is nothing more than a modified first past the post system where the candidate polling the lowest vote is eliminated and their votes are then redistributed to their second (third, fouth...) choice until a candidate polls 50%+1 of the total votes cast. This system does not solve the inequity of the first past the post system but brushes it under the carpet and gives an illusion of all votes being equal."
Thank You
But isn't it Scary that so many people don't understand this ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As someone said before on here true PR has a great many benifits. But also has draw backs, depending on how votes equate to mps/seats in teanslation.
Basically you risk giving people with very unpleasant and radical views a chance to not only voice them, but to potentially get people in power to represent them. And no I DO NOT THINK UKIP AND THEIR SUPPORTERS FALL INTO THAT CATERGORY AS A LUMP THEM ALTOGETHER GROUP.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"As someone said before on here true PR has a great many benifits. But also has draw backs, depending on how votes equate to mps/seats in teanslation.
Basically you risk giving people with very unpleasant and radical views a chance to not only voice them, but to potentially get people in power to represent them. And no I DO NOT THINK UKIP AND THEIR SUPPORTERS FALL INTO THAT CATERGORY AS A LUMP THEM ALTOGETHER GROUP.
"
A good reasoned answer
I wouldn't want radicals of either side in the parliament but in democracy you can't have it both ways .
My idea would be about 300 mp s , one per cent been the bar .
One per cent vote one mp . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
There are pros and cons of all electoral systems. FPTP has its advantages, it keeps fringe parties out, it leads to strong governments who can get things done, it keeps links to individual constituencies etc.
With PR you often get coalition governments that struggle to pass legislation, and you often find that the fringe parties then become "king makers" and as junior partners in coalitions wield considerable power in comparison to their size, or the number of votes they received.
Another thing that people don't understand, or often forget, is that FPTP isn't the only electoral system we have in the UK, we have a system for parish, district, county council and Westminster, another for mayoral elections, another for MEP elections (well we did at least!) another for the Scottish parliament and NI & Welsh Assemblies etc. So we have quite a few. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"There are pros and cons of all electoral systems. FPTP has its advantages, it keeps fringe parties out, it leads to strong governments who can get things done, it keeps links to individual constituencies etc.
With PR you often get coalition governments that struggle to pass legislation, and you often find that the fringe parties then become "king makers" and as junior partners in coalitions wield considerable power in comparison to their size, or the number of votes they received.
Another thing that people don't understand, or often forget, is that FPTP isn't the only electoral system we have in the UK, we have a system for parish, district, county council and Westminster, another for mayoral elections, another for MEP elections (well we did at least!) another for the Scottish parliament and NI & Welsh Assemblies etc. So we have quite a few."
True . But surely for a general election every vote should be equally important and it just isn't the case at the moment ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"There are pros and cons of all electoral systems. FPTP has its advantages, it keeps fringe parties out, it leads to strong governments who can get things done, it keeps links to individual constituencies etc.
With PR you often get coalition governments that struggle to pass legislation, and you often find that the fringe parties then become "king makers" and as junior partners in coalitions wield considerable power in comparison to their size, or the number of votes they received.
Another thing that people don't understand, or often forget, is that FPTP isn't the only electoral system we have in the UK, we have a system for parish, district, county council and Westminster, another for mayoral elections, another for MEP elections (well we did at least!) another for the Scottish parliament and NI & Welsh Assemblies etc. So we have quite a few.
True . But surely for a general election every vote should be equally important and it just isn't the case at the moment ?"
What if we had 65,000,000 MPs  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"There are pros and cons of all electoral systems. FPTP has its advantages, it keeps fringe parties out, it leads to strong governments who can get things done, it keeps links to individual constituencies etc.
With PR you often get coalition governments that struggle to pass legislation, and you often find that the fringe parties then become "king makers" and as junior partners in coalitions wield considerable power in comparison to their size, or the number of votes they received.
Another thing that people don't understand, or often forget, is that FPTP isn't the only electoral system we have in the UK, we have a system for parish, district, county council and Westminster, another for mayoral elections, another for MEP elections (well we did at least!) another for the Scottish parliament and NI & Welsh Assemblies etc. So we have quite a few.
True . But surely for a general election every vote should be equally important and it just isn't the case at the moment ?
What if we had 65,000,000 MPs "
You know exactly what I mean
Your too intelligent not to x
300 mps one per cent of the vote One M P ! Simples |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As someone said before on here true PR has a great many benifits. But also has draw backs, depending on how votes equate to mps/seats in teanslation.
Basically you risk giving people with very unpleasant and radical views a chance to not only voice them, but to potentially get people in power to represent them. And no I DO NOT THINK UKIP AND THEIR SUPPORTERS FALL INTO THAT CATERGORY AS A LUMP THEM ALTOGETHER GROUP.
"
So you would not be totally in favour of PR because some people you don't like might get a tiny bit of electoral success? I bet I know who you are talking about, but they always lose their deposits, that is unlikely to change. Sure if something nasty happens there might be a local backlash, but it doesn't last. Look at Rotherham as an example, people were angry about the disgusting sex abuse scandal, but they still elected a Labour MP. A case in point if ever there was. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"As someone said before on here true PR has a great many benifits. But also has draw backs, depending on how votes equate to mps/seats in teanslation.
Basically you risk giving people with very unpleasant and radical views a chance to not only voice them, but to potentially get people in power to represent them. And no I DO NOT THINK UKIP AND THEIR SUPPORTERS FALL INTO THAT CATERGORY AS A LUMP THEM ALTOGETHER GROUP.
So you would not be totally in favour of PR because some people you don't like might get a tiny bit of electoral success? I bet I know who you are talking about, but they always lose their deposits, that is unlikely to change. Sure if something nasty happens there might be a local backlash, but it doesn't last. Look at Rotherham as an example, people were angry about the disgusting sex abuse scandal, but they still elected a Labour MP. A case in point if ever there was."
Was this MP involved in the sex scandal? If not, then how are the two connected? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"As someone said before on here true PR has a great many benifits. But also has draw backs, depending on how votes equate to mps/seats in teanslation.
Basically you risk giving people with very unpleasant and radical views a chance to not only voice them, but to potentially get people in power to represent them. And no I DO NOT THINK UKIP AND THEIR SUPPORTERS FALL INTO THAT CATERGORY AS A LUMP THEM ALTOGETHER GROUP.
So you would not be totally in favour of PR because some people you don't like might get a tiny bit of electoral success? I bet I know who you are talking about, but they always lose their deposits, that is unlikely to change. Sure if something nasty happens there might be a local backlash, but it doesn't last. Look at Rotherham as an example, people were angry about the disgusting sex abuse scandal, but they still elected a Labour MP. A case in point if ever there was.
Was this MP involved in the sex scandal? If not, then how are the two connected? "
Because it was a Labour council that failed those children, and failed them badly. That is why! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ammskiMan
over a year ago
lytham st.annes |
"As someone said before on here true PR has a great many benifits. But also has draw backs, depending on how votes equate to mps/seats in teanslation.
Basically you risk giving people with very unpleasant and radical views a chance to not only voice them, but to potentially get people in power to represent them. And no I DO NOT THINK UKIP AND THEIR SUPPORTERS FALL INTO THAT CATERGORY AS A LUMP THEM ALTOGETHER GROUP.
So you would not be totally in favour of PR because some people you don't like might get a tiny bit of electoral success? I bet I know who you are talking about, but they always lose their deposits, that is unlikely to change. Sure if something nasty happens there might be a local backlash, but it doesn't last. Look at Rotherham as an example, people were angry about the disgusting sex abuse scandal, but they still elected a Labour MP. A case in point if ever there was.
Was this MP involved in the sex scandal? If not, then how are the two connected?
Because it was a Labour council that failed those children, and failed them badly. That is why!"
. I was under the impression it was Yorkshire police force who were at fault |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Because it was a Labour council that failed those children, and failed them badly. That is why!"
And there was me thinking that it was South Yorkshire Police and the social Services Department of Rotherham Council that were responsible for suppressing evidence and failing in their duties.
Obviously I was wrong and it was the councillors who refused to believe the girls, and the councillors who failed to log reported crimes and the councillors who refused to act because it might look as though it was racially motivated.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
One question: Are Tory and Liberal councillors equally responsible for the criminal acts of police and council officers in their councils? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As someone said before on here true PR has a great many benifits. But also has draw backs, depending on how votes equate to mps/seats in teanslation.
Basically you risk giving people with very unpleasant and radical views a chance to not only voice them, but to potentially get people in power to represent them. And no I DO NOT THINK UKIP AND THEIR SUPPORTERS FALL INTO THAT CATERGORY AS A LUMP THEM ALTOGETHER GROUP.
So you would not be totally in favour of PR because some people you don't like might get a tiny bit of electoral success? I bet I know who you are talking about, but they always lose their deposits, that is unlikely to change. Sure if something nasty happens there might be a local backlash, but it doesn't last. Look at Rotherham as an example, people were angry about the disgusting sex abuse scandal, but they still elected a Labour MP. A case in point if ever there was.
Was this MP involved in the sex scandal? If not, then how are the two connected?
Because it was a Labour council that failed those children, and failed them badly. That is why!"
Sarah Champion has been outspoken on the issue and has sought funding and got it to support the victims..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Because it was a Labour council that failed those children, and failed them badly. That is why!
And there was me thinking that it was South Yorkshire Police and the social Services Department of Rotherham Council that were responsible for suppressing evidence and failing in their duties.
Obviously I was wrong and it was the councillors who refused to believe the girls, and the councillors who failed to log reported crimes and the councillors who refused to act because it might look as though it was racially motivated.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
One question: Are Tory and Liberal councillors equally responsible for the criminal acts of police and council officers in their councils? "
Don't twist my words, I said it was a labour council, not a particular councillor or even specific member of said council. But like you said, the social services of Rotherham Council.
If Brighton & Hove city council social services had been in charge during such a horrific abuse of authority, I would never vote for the same party in any capacity. But the people of Rotherham did, which in all honesty was no big surprise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ammskiMan
over a year ago
lytham st.annes |
"Because it was a Labour council that failed those children, and failed them badly. That is why!
And there was me thinking that it was South Yorkshire Police and the social Services Department of Rotherham Council that were responsible for suppressing evidence and failing in their duties.
Obviously I was wrong and it was the councillors who refused to believe the girls, and the councillors who failed to log reported crimes and the councillors who refused to act because it might look as though it was racially motivated.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
One question: Are Tory and Liberal councillors equally responsible for the criminal acts of police and council officers in their councils?
Don't twist my words, I said it was a labour council, not a particular councillor or even specific member of said council. But like you said, the social services of Rotherham Council.
If Brighton & Hove city council social services had been in charge during such a horrific abuse of authority, I would never vote for the same party in any capacity. But the people of Rotherham did, which in all honesty was no big surprise. "
. So what,s your problem then,are you saying everybody in Rotherham is a paedophile ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"I don't know if this is exactly correct but on Radio five today some one said UKIP got 4 Million Vites at the last election and have one M P !
Labour got 8 Million Votes and have over 200 M Ps .
Yes I know this is our first past the post System !
But surely with all the Aguments about Democracy over Brexit , our Voting System needs severely looking at !
"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Because it was a Labour council that failed those children, and failed them badly. That is why!
And there was me thinking that it was South Yorkshire Police and the social Services Department of Rotherham Council that were responsible for suppressing evidence and failing in their duties.
Obviously I was wrong and it was the councillors who refused to believe the girls, and the councillors who failed to log reported crimes and the councillors who refused to act because it might look as though it was racially motivated.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
One question: Are Tory and Liberal councillors equally responsible for the criminal acts of police and council officers in their councils?
Don't twist my words, I said it was a labour council, not a particular councillor or even specific member of said council. But like you said, the social services of Rotherham Council.
If Brighton & Hove city council social services had been in charge during such a horrific abuse of authority, I would never vote for the same party in any capacity. But the people of Rotherham did, which in all honesty was no big surprise. . So what,s your problem then,are you saying everybody in Rotherham is a paedophile ?"
Don't be silly!
I'm just observing the fact that some people have very short memories. But that is politics. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain ."
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"maybe we could have a referendum...?
We did:
On 5 May 2011;
Or did you miss it?
The electorate was asked if they preferred the first past the post system, or the " Altrnative vote" system ( which, strictly, is not Proportional representation".)
The result was " no change""
.
I voted for no change, although I detest first past the post it does give stability and keeps out fringe parties with non mainstream views..... And I say that it all honesty as a green party member |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"maybe we could have a referendum...?
We did:
On 5 May 2011;
Or did you miss it?
The electorate was asked if they preferred the first past the post system, or the " Altrnative vote" system ( which, strictly, is not Proportional representation".)
The result was " no change".
I voted for no change, although I detest first past the post it does give stability and keeps out fringe parties with non mainstream views..... And I say that it all honesty as a green party member"
The problem with that vote is that P R wasn't offered .
I don't agree with the greens but I'm guessing under p r they would have at least ten M P s now and that is how it should be  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"maybe we could have a referendum...?
We did:
On 5 May 2011;
Or did you miss it?
The electorate was asked if they preferred the first past the post system, or the " Altrnative vote" system ( which, strictly, is not Proportional representation".)
The result was " no change".
I voted for no change, although I detest first past the post it does give stability and keeps out fringe parties with non mainstream views..... And I say that it all honesty as a green party member
The problem with that vote is that P R wasn't offered .
I don't agree with the greens but I'm guessing under p r they would have at least ten M P s now and that is how it should be "
.
That's my point, some people dislike the green party immensely and some people are fanatical about them, the same for ukip, UDP,sinn fein etc etc.... There polarising parties with polarising ideas, that's why you'll get instability through them, take a look around the world at the unstable political countries, they don't do very well.....
So I voted for something (first past the post) that I dislike because i think it's better than the alternative!.....
The green party won't go away because of it, it's a movement and movements should and need to take time to settle in |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system "
But you could say the same thing for all the people who voted lib dem or conservative, or greens as well, unless of course they get one vote more than the other parties, and then your vote does count. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system "
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
"
seems the oracle has spoken |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
"
Yes but surely in a Democracy this is wrong ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't know if this is exactly correct but on Radio five today some one said UKIP got 4 Million Vites at the last election and have one M P !
Labour got 8 Million Votes and have over 200 M Ps .
Yes I know this is our first past the post System !
But surely with all the Aguments about Democracy over Brexit , our Voting System needs severely looking at !
"
Are you sure about that ?
Our first past the post system makes for strong, decisive governments. This Brexit Malarky needs strong decisive leadership not wishy, washy hand wringing shall we shan't we politics that proportional representation makes LOL.
An election now would produce a strong, united government or......... a weak divided one if the near 50-50 referendum result is repeated LOL.
I suspect the former is a more likely result OP.
It's actually quite suprising how well the current system works. In theory it shouldn't but time after time we get the government we deserve from it as my dad used to say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It is suprising how well the British Constitution and voting system is working at the moment
Well..... consider this. If the supreme court ruling goes against the government I suspect Mrs May will have no choice but to call an election.
Your constituency will have candidates that have to go on the hustings and will probably have to declare their allegiance to Brexit or remain.
Personally I live in a constituency who's MP is Pro Brexit. I am a dyed in the wool |Tory, not suprise there but....... I voted to remain so what will that make me.
I have 3 choices....
1 Vote for my usual candidate no matter what. He normally believes in the things that I do and although I don't agree with him on this I need to go with the referendum result as that was what the majority of UK decided
2 Vote for a non brexit candidate such as a Liberal democrat. He might get in and block the process or put up a bit of a fight but is that what I really want when the country needs a strong leader with a powerful mandate.
3 Not bother voting. Oh I hate that more than any other option. My mother and father fought for me to have a vote so not voting is betraying their valour. Not voting is a total cop out.
Convinced yet OP ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It is suprising how well the British Constitution and voting system is working at the moment
Well..... consider this. If the supreme court ruling goes against the government I suspect Mrs May will have no choice but to call an election.
Your constituency will have candidates that have to go on the hustings and will probably have to declare their allegiance to Brexit or remain.
Personally I live in a constituency who's MP is Pro Brexit. I am a dyed in the wool |Tory, not suprise there but....... I voted to remain so what will that make me.
I have 3 choices....
1 Vote for my usual candidate no matter what. He normally believes in the things that I do and although I don't agree with him on this I need to go with the referendum result as that was what the majority of UK decided
2 Vote for a non brexit candidate such as a Liberal democrat. He might get in and block the process or put up a bit of a fight but is that what I really want when the country needs a strong leader with a powerful mandate.
3 Not bother voting. Oh I hate that more than any other option. My mother and father fought for me to have a vote so not voting is betraying their valour. Not voting is a total cop out.
Convinced yet OP ?"
Not yet but a thoughtful try
I too allways vote it just never counts !
I have voted liberal , then UKIP , I would now vote Conservative , but where I live a Donkey could Stand as an M P and labour would win |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You might be right about your own constituency but if the papers are to be believed Mr Corbyn has put his head above parapet and says he will oppose Brexit if we don't guarantee access to single market.
It's a little step towards going against referendum result as that states we are leaving no matter what even if it's a hard brexit and we don't know what are friends in Europe have up their sleeve yet.
I suspect that in your constituency there will be Pro leavers that will say hmmmmm. I voted to leave and my candidates doesn't represent what I want. At the very least I'm voting UKIP and so it goes on. There might not be enough in your constituency to change the result but I bet there are millions of people that will be swayed. Just as I may be swayed. I don't think I could ever put a cross in Comrade Corbyn's candidates box.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"You might be right about your own constituency but if the papers are to be believed Mr Corbyn has put his head above parapet and says he will oppose Brexit if we don't guarantee access to single market.
It's a little step towards going against referendum result as that states we are leaving no matter what even if it's a hard brexit and we don't know what are friends in Europe have up their sleeve yet.
I suspect that in your constituency there will be Pro leavers that will say hmmmmm. I voted to leave and my candidates doesn't represent what I want. At the very least I'm voting UKIP and so it goes on. There might not be enough in your constituency to change the result but I bet there are millions of people that will be swayed. Just as I may be swayed. I don't think I could ever put a cross in Comrade Corbyn's candidates box.
"
We agree on one thing then |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
Yes but surely in a Democracy this is wrong ?"
Before you say that; you need to define democracy. There are many and varied definitions, and shades of definition of " democracy . It is not s simple term .
And you need about 10,000 words to explain the various " types" of democracy.
But in simplistic terms, it is a system in which all members of a society ( having equal rights) choose how to be governed, either directly, or by chosen representatives, who will act according to the "majority's" wishes .
Bear in mind that Greek " democracy" , which is often cited ( possibly wrongly) as the origin of our " modern " democracy, was that the people if each town/village/area was represented by representatives, who were chosen by a local "jury". How the " jury" was selected, remains unclear .
Nowadays, you could have every single piece of legislation and action decided by everyone, by referendum ( ckearly impossible, since you would be having 5 national referendums every day) , or you choose, somehow, representatives who will broadly , represent what the majority of your fellow constituents want.
But every system of election, whether first past the post, or one of the multitude of " proportional representation " systems is flawed in some way . So you have to choose the " least worst" way of doing it.
As Churchill said, " democracy is the worst form of government; except for all the other forms..."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
My sons have an interesting view on the future of democracy. They are 20 somethings, very into their IT and I supposed what you'd call a typical view of how youngsters look at things.
They take the view that our democratic system is very old and archaic. Surely the technology now exists for us to take an instant electronic referendum on important issues. It would makes 65,000,000 million potential members of parliament. I'm not saying I agree but it is worth consideration.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
Yes but surely in a Democracy this is wrong ?
Before you say that; you need to define democracy. There are many and varied definitions, and shades of definition of " democracy . It is not s simple term .
And you need about 10,000 words to explain the various " types" of democracy.
But in simplistic terms, it is a system in which all members of a society ( having equal rights) choose how to be governed, either directly, or by chosen representatives, who will act according to the "majority's" wishes .
Bear in mind that Greek " democracy" , which is often cited ( possibly wrongly) as the origin of our " modern " democracy, was that the people if each town/village/area was represented by representatives, who were chosen by a local "jury". How the " jury" was selected, remains unclear .
Nowadays, you could have every single piece of legislation and action decided by everyone, by referendum ( ckearly impossible, since you would be having 5 national referendums every day) , or you choose, somehow, representatives who will broadly , represent what the majority of your fellow constituents want.
But every system of election, whether first past the post, or one of the multitude of " proportional representation " systems is flawed in some way . So you have to choose the " least worst" way of doing it.
As Churchill said, " democracy is the worst form of government; except for all the other forms..."
"
I seize upon something in your paragraph about ancient Greece and how they chose candidates. My son studied Ancient greece at University and apparently they chose candidates using a lottery method.
When you think about it that could work provided the list was not provided corruptly and the whole District was in the lotto it would provide a sufficiently diverse selection of points of view. It would be fairly representative wouldn't it, unless the local lunatic was a candidate but there would be enough other candidates to check his lunatic point of view.
Soooooo instead of an election we could have a national lottery for Parliament. Think about it. It would work wouldn't it. I can see why the greeks would do it that way.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"maybe we could have a referendum...?"
We had one a few years ago. The limp dems insisted on it as part of the coalition deal. The overwhelming majority was to keep it the same. We have elections by constituency. We choos an mp to represent us. We do not vote for a government or for a PM.
The party with the largest number of constituency MPs gets to form the government and to choose the PM.
We voted on this in a democratic referendum! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"maybe we could have a referendum...?
We had one a few years ago. The limp dems insisted on it as part of the coalition deal. The overwhelming majority was to keep it the same. We have elections by constituency. We choos an mp to represent us. We do not vote for a government or for a PM.
The party with the largest number of constituency MPs gets to form the government and to choose the PM.
We voted on this in a democratic referendum!"
It wasn't for proportional representation, though; it was for the alternative vote system.
Which is simply a more refined ( more complex) method of selecting one candidate per constituency :
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yeah but it was a stalking horse. We'd have found out it was a pile of pooh and unfit for purpose and then had a proper vote over whether to go proportional or stay as we are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't know if this is exactly correct but on Radio five today some one said UKIP got 4 Million Vites at the last election and have one M P !
Labour got 8 Million Votes and have over 200 M Ps .
Yes I know this is our first past the post System !
But surely with all the Aguments about Democracy over Brexit , our Voting System needs severely looking at !
"
The figures were wrong labour get 9.3 million votes and ukip got 3.8 million but your point is still valid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yeah but it was a stalking horse. We'd have found out it was a pile of pooh and unfit for purpose and then had a proper vote over whether to go proportional or stay as we are."
No, it wasn't;
The major parties will never allow PR;
They did a referendum on AV because
The Conservstives felt the need to give s little tidbit to the Libdems;
They did AV because most people would think it was PR,
If it had been passed, it wouldn't have really mattered, as under the UK system, AV would have made almost no ( if any) difference to the results of any election . PR would . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"My sons have an interesting view on the future of democracy. They are 20 somethings, very into their IT and I supposed what you'd call a typical view of how youngsters look at things.
They take the view that our democratic system is very old and archaic. Surely the technology now exists for us to take an instant electronic referendum on important issues. It would makes 65,000,000 million potential members of parliament. I'm not saying I agree but it is worth consideration.
"
Now your talking |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't know if this is exactly correct but on Radio five today some one said UKIP got 4 Million Vites at the last election and have one M P !
Labour got 8 Million Votes and have over 200 M Ps .
Yes I know this is our first past the post System !
But surely with all the Aguments about Democracy over Brexit , our Voting System needs severely looking at !
"
I think we do need to look our electrical system again but we did have a referendum on this very issue back in 2012. The people voted for no change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
Yes but surely in a Democracy this is wrong ?"
Far more important for democtacy than the system used to elect people is the fact that, by whatever system, those people can be unelected; they can be held to account for what they do and say. Whereas, in a referendum, where every vote counts equally, there is no accountability. Accountability, not voting systems, is what makes a democracy truly work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
Yes but surely in a Democracy this is wrong ?
Far more important for democtacy than the system used to elect people is the fact that, by whatever system, those people can be unelected; they can be held to account for what they do and say. Whereas, in a referendum, where every vote counts equally, there is no accountability. Accountability, not voting systems, is what makes a democracy truly work."
As in politicians being accountable for doing what the country told them to do in the referendum? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I don't know if this is exactly correct but on Radio five today some one said UKIP got 4 Million Vites at the last election and have one M P !
Labour got 8 Million Votes and have over 200 M Ps .
Yes I know this is our first past the post System !
But surely with all the Aguments about Democracy over Brexit , our Voting System needs severely looking at !
I think we do need to look our electrical system again but we did have a referendum on this very issue back in 2012. The people voted for no change."
As said earlier P R was never offered it was a stupid system offered against our present one ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
Yes but surely in a Democracy this is wrong ?
Far more important for democtacy than the system used to elect people is the fact that, by whatever system, those people can be unelected; they can be held to account for what they do and say. Whereas, in a referendum, where every vote counts equally, there is no accountability. Accountability, not voting systems, is what makes a democracy truly work.
As in politicians being accountable for doing what the country told them to do in the referendum? "
And as in :
The government being ordered to do it properly;
And accountably
And the MPs therefore having to do their bit to make sure it's done properly .
And it's frankly horrific that a court of law had to tell the government to do their job properly; and openly, and not do it in secret, to hide the fact that the government have done no planning or preparation, and 100 days on, have no idea what to do, and are trying to hide the fact that the leadership of the UK is in total disarray . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
Yes but surely in a Democracy this is wrong ?
Far more important for democtacy than the system used to elect people is the fact that, by whatever system, those people can be unelected; they can be held to account for what they do and say. Whereas, in a referendum, where every vote counts equally, there is no accountability. Accountability, not voting systems, is what makes a democracy truly work."
One of the very reasons people voted to Leave the EU. The people who run the show in the EU (the commissars) are not accountable to anyone, they are not elected by the people and they cannot be removed by the people. The EU as a democracy doesn't work. You can't have an unaccountable elite running things for everyone in Europe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
Yes but surely in a Democracy this is wrong ?
Far more important for democtacy than the system used to elect people is the fact that, by whatever system, those people can be unelected; they can be held to account for what they do and say. Whereas, in a referendum, where every vote counts equally, there is no accountability. Accountability, not voting systems, is what makes a democracy truly work.
One of the very reasons people voted to Leave the EU. The people who run the show in the EU (the commissars) are not accountable to anyone, they are not elected by the people and they cannot be removed by the people. The EU as a democracy doesn't work. You can't have an unaccountable elite running things for everyone in Europe. "
As usual; your deliberately incorrect interpretation; the EU officials are, in every respect, far more accountable and have to be far more transparent , than any British government minister ever had to be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
Yes but surely in a Democracy this is wrong ?
Far more important for democtacy than the system used to elect people is the fact that, by whatever system, those people can be unelected; they can be held to account for what they do and say. Whereas, in a referendum, where every vote counts equally, there is no accountability. Accountability, not voting systems, is what makes a democracy truly work.
As in politicians being accountable for doing what the country told them to do in the referendum?
And as in :
The government being ordered to do it properly;
And accountably
And the MPs therefore having to do their bit to make sure it's done properly .
And it's frankly horrific that a court of law had to tell the government to do their job properly; and openly, and not do it in secret, to hide the fact that the government have done no planning or preparation, and 100 days on, have no idea what to do, and are trying to hide the fact that the leadership of the UK is in total disarray ."
Well said my friend!
We've been arguing this for days. It comes back to one simple question:
Given that we have a parliamentary democracy in which sovereignty lies with parliament (and if you don't agree that this is the case then, frankly, you are wrong, deal with it and move on), what on earth is anyone, leaver or remainer, complaining about with the High Court decision?
As you say, the appalling point in all of this isn't the verdict of the court (which should he a cause for parties in the street!), it is that the executive (ie the government) didn't put this before parliament already but, instead, tried to bypass it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce"
maybe Cameron was keeping it schtum as he thought old gutless Boris would step up to the plate..
or just another addition to our Dave's glorious reign.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce"
i don't think despotic Mrs Maygabe gives a shit ...... just as long as her and her cabinet can use 3 million odd kipturds to divide public opinion enough to turn the country into an african style failed state where they can grab more cash from the ensuing confusion and corruption |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce"
what did the Belfast High Court say on the matter? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce
what did the Belfast High Court say on the matter?"
Go on....enlighten me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce
what did the Belfast High Court say on the matter?
Go on....enlighten me"
And when you do, please quote it properly, including date etc, so that we can refer to it ourselves if we so desire. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce
what did the Belfast High Court say on the matter?
Go on....enlighten me"
It said that neither the Westminster Parliament or the NI assembly had to be asked before the British government triggers Article 50.
The court agreed that changes in the law and to people's rights needs to be enacted by Parliament but it said the decision to notify the EU of the intention to leave under Article 50 does not itself generate these legal effects.
While negotiations that follow A50 being launched will lead to changes down the line, nothing changes until then.
So basically the government alone can trigger Article 50.
Do I know which was the right decision? No.
Unlike you I am not an expert on constitutional matters or a trained Lawyer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce
what did the Belfast High Court say on the matter?
Go on....enlighten me
It said that neither the Westminster Parliament or the NI assembly had to be asked before the British government triggers Article 50.
The court agreed that changes in the law and to people's rights needs to be enacted by Parliament but it said the decision to notify the EU of the intention to leave under Article 50 does not itself generate these legal effects.
While negotiations that follow A50 being launched will lead to changes down the line, nothing changes until then.
So basically the government alone can trigger Article 50.
Do I know which was the right decision? No.
Unlike you I am not an expert on constitutional matters or a trained Lawyer"
I don't know why you are getting your knickers in a twist over this, a vote on triggering Article 50 will fly through the Commons.....
But at least it would have followed constitutional law, and at the end of the day that is all important to the political future of our country.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce
what did the Belfast High Court say on the matter?
Go on....enlighten me
It said that neither the Westminster Parliament or the NI assembly had to be asked before the British government triggers Article 50.
The court agreed that changes in the law and to people's rights needs to be enacted by Parliament but it said the decision to notify the EU of the intention to leave under Article 50 does not itself generate these legal effects.
While negotiations that follow A50 being launched will lead to changes down the line, nothing changes until then.
So basically the government alone can trigger Article 50.
Do I know which was the right decision? No.
Unlike you I am not an expert on constitutional matters or a trained Lawyer
I don't know why you are getting your knickers in a twist over this, a vote on triggering Article 50 will fly through the Commons.....
But at least it would have followed constitutional law, and at the end of the day that is all important to the political future of our country.
"
stop making assumptions, I am not bothered by this, as I've said before it will make no difference. I am just pointing out to the legal experts on here like yourself that another court found in the governments favour |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago
Babbacombe Torquay |
"I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce
what did the Belfast High Court say on the matter?
Go on....enlighten me
It said that neither the Westminster Parliament or the NI assembly had to be asked before the British government triggers Article 50.
The court agreed that changes in the law and to people's rights needs to be enacted by Parliament but it said the decision to notify the EU of the intention to leave under Article 50 does not itself generate these legal effects.
While negotiations that follow A50 being launched will lead to changes down the line, nothing changes until then.
So basically the government alone can trigger Article 50.
Do I know which was the right decision? No.
Unlike you I am not an expert on constitutional matters or a trained Lawyer
I don't know why you are getting your knickers in a twist over this, a vote on triggering Article 50 will fly through the Commons.....
But at least it would have followed constitutional law, and at the end of the day that is all important to the political future of our country.
stop making assumptions, I am not bothered by this, as I've said before it will make no difference. I am just pointing out to the legal experts on here like yourself that another court found in the governments favour"
You clearly ARE bothered by it, I base my assumptions on the content of your posts, I don't answer posts for the sake of it...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce"
No not really. How many times have we left the EU LOL. As if we are in any sort of charted waters here.
Cast your mind back a dozen years or so. A certain Prime minister took us to war even though The lawyers said hang on a minute, you can't do it like that Prime minister. It's not legal.
This Prime minister has probably learnt quite a lot from that mistake and does not wish to repeat it. Think about it. She crashes on and triggers Brexit. The EU makes an almighty fuss and we get the shitiest, hardest brexit they can possibly imagine. Andrew Neil will be the first one to pompously stand up and say, this prime minister is an incompetent fool.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce
what did the Belfast High Court say on the matter?
Go on....enlighten me
It said that neither the Westminster Parliament or the NI assembly had to be asked before the British government triggers Article 50.
The court agreed that changes in the law and to people's rights needs to be enacted by Parliament but it said the decision to notify the EU of the intention to leave under Article 50 does not itself generate these legal effects.
While negotiations that follow A50 being launched will lead to changes down the line, nothing changes until then.
So basically the government alone can trigger Article 50.
Do I know which was the right decision? No.
Unlike you I am not an expert on constitutional matters or a trained Lawyer
I don't know why you are getting your knickers in a twist over this, a vote on triggering Article 50 will fly through the Commons.....
But at least it would have followed constitutional law, and at the end of the day that is all important to the political future of our country.
stop making assumptions, I am not bothered by this, as I've said before it will make no difference. I am just pointing out to the legal experts on here like yourself that another court found in the governments favour
You clearly ARE bothered by it, I base my assumptions on the content of your posts, I don't answer posts for the sake of it......"
what was that then?
you jump on as many posts as you can. For the sake of it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
Yes but surely in a Democracy this is wrong ?
Far more important for democtacy than the system used to elect people is the fact that, by whatever system, those people can be unelected; they can be held to account for what they do and say. Whereas, in a referendum, where every vote counts equally, there is no accountability. Accountability, not voting systems, is what makes a democracy truly work.
One of the very reasons people voted to Leave the EU. The people who run the show in the EU (the commissars) are not accountable to anyone, they are not elected by the people and they cannot be removed by the people. The EU as a democracy doesn't work. You can't have an unaccountable elite running things for everyone in Europe. "
Ig that was the case I would be backing BREXIT myself but it's not. The main decision making authority in the EU is the Council of Ministers, which is accountable to the democratically elected member governments. The second decision making body is the European Parliament, directly elected and accountable to the people of Europe. The Commission has no decision making authority. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I find it impossible to believe that the Office of the Prime Minister never had enough legal eagles to have informed May in advance of the constitutional implications, I'm not alone in that, Andrew Neill seemed as dumbfounded over the matter.....it's a bloody farce
what did the Belfast High Court say on the matter?
Go on....enlighten me
It said that neither the Westminster Parliament or the NI assembly had to be asked before the British government triggers Article 50.
The court agreed that changes in the law and to people's rights needs to be enacted by Parliament but it said the decision to notify the EU of the intention to leave under Article 50 does not itself generate these legal effects.
While negotiations that follow A50 being launched will lead to changes down the line, nothing changes until then.
So basically the government alone can trigger Article 50.
Do I know which was the right decision? No.
Unlike you I am not an expert on constitutional matters or a trained Lawyer"
What the Northern Irish Court actually said was that the Northern Ireland assembly does not have the right to block decisions of the British government and parliament. It basically said that the British Parliament is sovereign above the Northern Ireland Assembly.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN12S11U?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
Yes but surely in a Democracy this is wrong ?
Far more important for democtacy than the system used to elect people is the fact that, by whatever system, those people can be unelected; they can be held to account for what they do and say. Whereas, in a referendum, where every vote counts equally, there is no accountability. Accountability, not voting systems, is what makes a democracy truly work.
One of the very reasons people voted to Leave the EU. The people who run the show in the EU (the commissars) are not accountable to anyone, they are not elected by the people and they cannot be removed by the people. The EU as a democracy doesn't work. You can't have an unaccountable elite running things for everyone in Europe.
Ig that was the case I would be backing BREXIT myself but it's not. The main decision making authority in the EU is the Council of Ministers, which is accountable to the democratically elected member governments. The second decision making body is the European Parliament, directly elected and accountable to the people of Europe. The Commission has no decision making authority."
What do you think the role of the EU commission is then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do you say they are not?
Explain .
Simply really , UKIP got about half the votes of labour but labour got about 300 more seats instead of half as much .
Also unless I vote labour where I live my vote didn't count under our system
That's a different question;
All votes are equal; no one has a " vote that counts more than everyone else's"
If you are in a safe seat constituency for one if the parties; it's unfortunate if you aren't going to "get close "
But that's life.
Yes but surely in a Democracy this is wrong ?
Far more important for democtacy than the system used to elect people is the fact that, by whatever system, those people can be unelected; they can be held to account for what they do and say. Whereas, in a referendum, where every vote counts equally, there is no accountability. Accountability, not voting systems, is what makes a democracy truly work.
One of the very reasons people voted to Leave the EU. The people who run the show in the EU (the commissars) are not accountable to anyone, they are not elected by the people and they cannot be removed by the people. The EU as a democracy doesn't work. You can't have an unaccountable elite running things for everyone in Europe.
Ig that was the case I would be backing BREXIT myself but it's not. The main decision making authority in the EU is the Council of Ministers, which is accountable to the democratically elected member governments. The second decision making body is the European Parliament, directly elected and accountable to the people of Europe. The Commission has no decision making authority.
What do you think the role of the EU commission is then? "
I don't have to think about what the role of the EU Commission because I already know what it is. The European Commissions' main roles are implementing decisions of the European Union (as agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliment), upholding the EU treaties and managing the day-to-day business of the EU. These functions are very similar to the functions that the Civil Service provides in this country and civil services provide in many others around the world. In addition to these roles the European Commission also, and uniquely for a civil service, has the semi executive role of proposing legislation. However, although it does have the primary role of proposing legislation, it has no power or authority to pass legislation; those powers lie in the European Parliament (directly and democratically accountable to the people) and the Council of Ministers (accountable to the Democratically elected governments). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
