The People Have Spoken

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by Pete1950, May 24, 2014.

  1. I stand corrected, although I suspect that Malta is chosen because it's rather easier to get to than other places.
    Not a great deal to do there, though.
     
  2. By all means vote for a Parliament of Europe after we have decided as a nation, by a referendum, that we want to be part of a Federal European Superstate. Forcing me to be part of a Federal European Superstate without a referendum is undemocratic.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. The whole argument that Britain has as much influence on other EU member states as other member states has on Britain is somewhat specious.

    Take a(nother) hypothetical situation which is easy to understand -

    Say the EU consists of France, Germany and the UK. France and Germany are both in favour of a Federal Europe, the UK is not. Whilst the influence that the UK, France and Germany can bring to bear individually upon each other is, in a sense, equal, France and Germany have effectively twice as many votes as the UK (in this example) as far as voting for a Federal Europe is concerned, or on any other issue where France and Germany see eye-to-eye. The statement, "The UK has gained exactly as much power over all the other EU member states as other states have gained over the UK" is actually meaningless and misleading, in this circumstance.

    Oh wait, did I say hypothetical again?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. Because the ruling elites from the two parties are Europhiles against the will of the people. If the choice at a general election is between the Labs and the Cons it is no surprise that the people have been denied a referendum. To suggest that there is therefore widespread support for a European Superstate is disingenuous.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. So who is going to decide ? You and your mates or the people ?
     
  6. I think that's somewhat missing the point. I haven't noticed that the UK population particularly wants power over anyone at all much. Surely what they want is power over themselves. If power is kept in Britain, then only the Brits vote on it. If some of it is devolved to Brussels, then all sorts of other people vote on it - a less homogenous population who might see things very differently. In which case, an even smaller percentage of Brits than usual might feel that they are getting what they want.

    The mutuality you describe - give up some power at home in order to get some abroad - is not something that I have ever heard anyone wish for. And in any case, it is just human nature to see losses as more important than gains: people are devastated if their salary is cut by 10%, only mildly pleased if it is increased by 10%.

    You would now have me, I suspect, as being anti Europe. Not so (after all, I did choose to live in the middle of it, within a stone's throw of its various cultures and languages). But I am against a closer and closer union - a massive federal project. The people who are really comfortable with this are places like Luxembourg (interesting to see that one of the prime candidates for President is a luxemburger, as is/was one of the Commission vice-presidents). Just to remind people, Luxembourg has a population about the since of a British provincial town (about the size of Leicester). Or, perhaps Germany, which is quite clearly the motor of the whole EU.

    I can't see that the UN has a great deal in common with the EU. It's a great plan, but with the Security Council deciding so much, with its self-appointed permanent members, it's hard to see what what it can really achieve in its current form.

    As for NATO - in what way is a military alliance (that surely made sense during the Cold War) closely related to a European super-state?

    As regards the free movement of peoples, would it not be unreasonable to suggest that net migration should be fixed at some percentage? If you free up one million places in your country through emigration, then you accept one million immigrants? In other words, some sort of quota system? I believe that this is what we voted for here in Switzerland recently: not no immigration, or removing people already here, but the right to decide how many immigrants could come to Switzerland. This pissed off the EU big style. The EU doesn't think that any country should be allowed to decide who comes to it, or in what numbers. This is patently absurd.

    I apologise in advance to those who might think that such a post is sanctimonious, or that it displays a know-all attitude. Forums in my book are for voicing opinions. If they bore you, don't read them. If you don't agree, refute them. It's all fine by me.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  7. Add in Red Ed and Cleggy and we will agree on something.
     
  8. I'm glad we see fairly eye-to-eye on the subject of referenda being a good thing.

    And we can also agree, perhaps, that in the UK they might never happen as they do in Switzerland.
    However, I still think that the paltry turn-out in elections is a worry, as it assumes that either people have completely lost interest in the political process, or that they just can't see anyone much worth voting for. If you are a vegetarian in a meat restaurant - are you going to order the lamb or the beef? Neither make any sense to you.

    I disagree that voting on the Treaty of Lisbon would come way down the list of priorities for a referendum for the British people. I think it would be right at the top of the list, or thereabouts.
     
  9. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws"
     
  10. Pretty much Naomi Klein's analysis of the white to black power handover in South Africa.
     
  11. Quite so. Since there is no written constitution, there is no category of legislation which is entrenched. The UK Parliament has unlimited powers, and can make even drastic constitutional changes by an ordinary Bill following the ordinary procedures of parliament. However there seems to be no pressure from any quarter for a written constitution to be introduced, so presumably everybody is happy with this state of affairs.
     
  12. Well well, I make numerous discursive posts on various aspects of this debate of such prolixity that I fear boring everybody to tears. But no, apparently I am "ignoring" your question. Which question was that, exactly? There have been so many.

    As regards the multiplicity of issues, thank you kindly for making my point for me. There is indeed a multiplicity of political issues in play, several of which you have mentioned, and as you say Europe is by no means the top of the list for a lot of voters. Quite so. The essence of a general election is that it is general - it decides all issues. The system we have does not provide for dozens of different votes as voters pick and choose which line they prefer on each issue. As I have said, I would rather like such a system, even though hardly anyone else would. Would you?
     
  13. Picture the scene. You are the leader of a party. One wing of your party is strongly committed to policy X, but another wing is implacably opposed to policy X. Neither lot will budge, and their positions are irreconcilable. You are trying to fend off a split in the party on your watch.
    Q: How can you as leader contrive some kind of fudge which both wings can declare their support for, without giving up their respective cherished obsessions?
    A: Offer a referendum at some future date, and persuade both the pro-X and anti-X factions to settle for that.


    I wouldn't say "automatically" - it still requires a lot of hard arm-twisting to obtain anything resembling agreement. Harold Wilson described what he had to do as "Wading through shit". And that is how politics works.
     
  14. Political structures are based on mutuality. The culture of the Western Isles is so very different from say the City of London for example, why on earth should either have any influence on the laws and practices of the other? Because the UK was built out of an assembly of varied countries, regions, counties and cities. You seem to think that variety is a reason for dismantling it. I beg to disagree. The component parts vary, certainly, and long may they retain their individuality. But they are stronger united than they would be divided.
     
  15. Part of the concept of democracy is that the will of the majority prevails. That's not just hypothetical, it's actual. If (hypothetically) every part of the EU was comprehensively and perfectly democratic, it would necessarily follow that the UK might find itself in a minority over some issues. You seem to be saying that would be unacceptable to you.

    In the case of the actual EU, though, each one of the 28 members states has a veto over any new treaty, a veto over any new accessions, and a veto over any structural reforms. Even 27 states unanimously cannot oblige the 28th to accept any such thing. This makes for a cumbersome system, to be sure, but your hypothetical problem cannot arise.

    So are you complaining that the EU is too democratic, or not democratic enough? Or are you making both complaints at the same time?
     
  16. You seem to have defined "the interests of the proprietors of the Telegraph, the Sun and the Daily Mail" as equivalent to "the will of the people".
     
  17. Pete, we're just saying that the majority of the electorate have never had the chance to vote on membership of the EU. No-one in this country has been asked the direct question re membership of what the EU state has become.

    Surely, if you are a supporter of democracy, you couldn't or wouldn't deny the electorate the chance to have their say?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. The UN, NATO, the IMF, and the Council of Europe are examples of different structures serving different purposes, of course, but the point is that they are all organisations which the UK has chosen to join by treaty, which are mutually beneficial to their member states, and which the UK could conceivably decide to withdraw from. Each organisation requires member states on joining to subscribe to certain common purposes and processes. Being a member can entail inconvenience and expenditure, among other drawbacks, but also brings great advantages. On balance it is far and away better to belong than to withdraw. Surely the equivalence to the EU is obvious?
     
  19. This is nonsense on stilts. The majority of the electorate have never had the chance to vote on an enormously long list of things, including virtually everything of importance in the UK. So what? Why have you chosen to pick on just one item from a vast number of possible items, and ask me why I would "deny the electorate the chance to have their say"? Why would you deny the electorate the chance to have their say about everything else except your one obsession?
     
  20. Theres lots of referendums. Every time I vote for someone to make decisions for me in local elections, national elections and european elections, so that I can get on with watching telly.
     
Do Not Sell My Personal Information