Brexit

Xenophobic bastard !!!

 

Joe

I would point out at the moment we have a leader that majority of people didn’t vote for in fact only some 100,000 people out of a voting population of around 50 million actually voted for Boris to be ‘our’ leader.

Also as pointed out because of our system of parliamentary constituency and first past the post electoral system the political Party’s that get control of the government usually have power in excess (often far in excess) to their mandate.

For example even though Margret Thatcher as leader of the Conservatives won three elections the Tory’s never polled more than 43% of the popular vote. I’ve been told that that the last time a UK government was elected with more than 50% of the popular vote was back in 1931.

This means that we get things like the 2015 election when the Conservatives got only 36.9% of the popular vote but 50.9% of the Parliamentary seats.

So actually in the UK the leading party (and leader) is usually NOT voted for by the majority of us so not sure who you mean by the WE above?

 

Respect the referendum vote to leave

But why should anyone ‘respect’ something that was built on lies and deceit?

It has to remember the leaver campaign was very upbeat it was all about having our cake and eating it, we would get a deal, a good deal, a great deal, a terrific deal, a terrifically great deal. There would be no down side to Brexit it would be easy to do and people wouldn’t even notice, until things started to become much better in those fabled ‘sunny uplands’.

and leave meant a no deal Brexit

And the other thing is that in the referendum even the leaver leadership ruled out a No Deal Brexit, they said time and again that would be bad and would never happen, it was always that they could get a ‘better deal’. The whole idea of a No Deal was called ‘project fear’ by the leaver leadership, no deal was something to be feared – in other words - to not be voted for.

 

Cheers mate.
Spoken like a true Trotsky/Marxist.
I love you too!

 

And Proud to be so !!!

 

As I’ve said before looking across the Brexit threads on the forum you can get a feel for the characters of the supporters on each side of the argument and I’m sorry to say that is a sad indictment of those on the leavers side who often come across as Il-informed, hate filled, mean of spirit and petty who are happy to say barefaced lies while often seemingly contemptuous of democratic procedures and institutions.

I ask if you are a decent person and a leaver don’t you look around you and wonder what crowd you have fallen into and why?

I mean if you are on the side of an argument that is attractive to these kind of people as well as racists and neo-Nazis types wouldn’t you be asking yourself if you were on the right side of that argument?

 

Any of them?
You can't stand a single French or German person?
You seemed fairly fond of Irminsul.

 

Well I made my post with me meaning to be a little jokey like Drift.
But anyway.
For Irminsul.
I would bend over backwards to not offend, and do all I can to please her!

 

Yes after doing some research I found you are correct and I agree this voting system is awful and ACTUALLY we the Queen Decides who is Prime Minister, But at least she usually chooses the Party with the Most seats, But if you don't like our system (Which i agree) The EU isn't a better system. I Personally think Boris may be a good Leader (I know he was born outside the UK) but I also didn't vote for the TORYS. (Not being Sexist to mrs may) With so many partys it is hard for one to get over 50% but someone has be leader.

 

CAN I JUST POINT OUT THAT WHEN I SAID I HATE AMERICANS AND RUSSIANS I WAS JOKING, THERE ARE REMAINERS WHO DON'T MIND NON EU CITIZENS AROUND THEM. BUT I DO AGREE ON REMAIN JUST TO KEEP FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT WHITE.

 

ONE: WHY IS YOUR CAPS ON <--
Two: Nobody thinks that ALL Remainers hate Non EU citizens I get that was a Joke.
Three: Why do you want freedom of movement for only white people?? I never heard anyone say that.

 

And I wouldn’t agree with that either.

 

Thats totally your Right, Which one you disagree with (Or all 3) I think its only fair that everyones opinion is counted not just the PC ones/

 

I have an absolute hatred of PC..

 

To be honest I totally agree with you on That one. Last Year it was "You can't say People of Colour you must use the term BAME" now its "You cannot say BAME". Also I agree that the Scottish Police was actually STUPID, to take the guy "who Trained a Dog to do a Nazi Salute as a JOKE" Seriously, He got a FINE for a JOKE.

There is nothing you should not be allowed to Joke About. Unless your a Leftist and you don't know what a Joke is.

 

A popular claim by many supporters of the Leave campaign is that the EU is undemocratic or is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’.

How much truth is there behind these claims?

This claim mainly refers to the EU Commission: the EU’s executive body. It is true that the Commission President and the individual Commissioners are not directly elected by the peoples of Europe. So, in that sense, we cannot “throw the scoundrels out”. It is also true that under the provisions of the EU treaty, the Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation, which, if passed, is then binding on all the EU member states and the citizens of these member states.

But, that’s not the end of the story. First, the Commission’s power to propose legislation is much weaker than it at first seems. The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so.

Also, ‘proposing’ is not the same as ‘deciding’. A Commission proposal only becomes law if it is approved by both a qualified-majority in the EU Council (unanimity in many sensitive areas) and a simple majority in the European Parliament. In practice this means that after the amendments adopted by the governments and the MEPs, the legislation usually looks very different to what the Commission originally proposed. In this sense, the Commission is much weaker than it was in the 1980s, when it was harder to amend its proposals in the Council and when the European Parliament did not have amendment and veto power.

Part of the misunderstanding about the power of the Commission perhaps stems from a comparison with the British system of government. Unlike the British government, which commands a majority in the House of Commons, the Commission does not command an in-built majority in the EU Council or the European Parliament, and so has to build a coalition issue-by-issue. This puts the Commission in a much weaker position in the EU system than the British government in the UK system.

Second, the Commission President and the Commissioners are indirectly elected. Under Article 17 of the EU treaty, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission President is formally proposed by the European Council (the 28 heads of government of the EU member states), by a qualified-majority vote, and is then ‘elected’ by a majority vote in the European Parliament. In an effort to inject a bit more democracy into this process, the main European party families proposed rival candidates for the Commission President before the 2014 European Parliament elections. Then, after the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) won the most seats in the new Parliament, the European Council agreed to propose the EPP’s candidate: Jean-Claude Juncker.

The problem in Britain, though, is that this new way of ‘electing’ the Commission President did not feel very democratic. None of the main British parties are in the EPP (the Conservatives left the EPP in 2009), and so British voters were not able to vote for Juncker (although they could vote against him). There was also very little media coverage in the UK of the campaigns between the various candidates for the Commission President, so few British people understand how the process worked (unlike in some other member states). But, we can hardly blame the EU for the Conservatives leaving the EPP or for our media failing to cover the Commission President election campaign!

Then, once the Commission President is chosen, each EU member state nominates a Commissioner, and each Commissioner is then subject to a hearing in one of the committees of the European Parliament (modelled on US Senate hearings of US Presidential nominees to the US cabinet). If a committee issues a ‘negative opinion’ the candidate is usually withdrawn by the government concerned. After the hearings, the team of 28 is then subject to an up/down ‘investiture vote’ by a simple majority of the MEPs.

Finally, once invested, the Commission as a whole can be removed by a two-thirds ‘censure vote’ in the European Parliament. This has never happened before, but in 1999 the Santer Commission resigned before a censure vote was due to be taken which they were likely to lose. So, yes, the Commission is not directly elected. But it is not strictly true to say that it is ‘unelected’ or unaccountable.

And, in many ways, the way the Commission is now chosen is similar to the way the UK government is formed. Neither the British Prime Minister nor the British cabinet are ‘directly elected’. Formally, in House of Commons elections, we do not vote on the choice for the Prime Minister, but rather vote for individual MPs from different parties. Then, by convention, the Queen chooses the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to form a government. This is rather like the European Council choosing the candidate of the political group with the most seats in the European Parliament to become the Commission President.

Then, after the Prime Minister is chosen, he or she is free to choose his or her cabinet ministers. There are no hearings of individual ministerial nominees before committees of the House of Commons, and there is no formal investiture vote in the government as a whole. From this perspective, the Commissioners and the Commission are more scrutinised and more accountable than British cabinet ministers.

So, it is easy to claim that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’, but the reality is quite a long way from that. Although, having said that, I would be one of the first to acknowledge that the EU does not feel as democratic as it could or should be – as I have spent much of my academic career writing about this issue. But, this is perhaps more to do with the stage of development of the EU than because of the procedures that are now in place for choosing and removing the Commission, which are far more ‘democratic’ than they were 5 or 10 years ago.

Simon Hix is Harold Laski Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

 

Joe

That is why we should have proportional representation, so that coalitions are made that at east represent a majority of the people.

In what way and how would you improve it?

 

The EU already operates a system of PR in their elections.

The Voting System

 

Brexit is a long term problem

Just crashing out of the EU without a deal will cause many very serious short term problems that in time will be dealt with but the harm doesn’t stop there because the thing is that ALL forms of Brexit will have harmful long term consequences. I’d even say that even if Brexit is cancelled a lot of damage has already been done that will have long term consequences, the rest of Europe and the world are looking at the UK differently, not as a sound place to invest but as somewhere dysfunctional with elements in it that are frankly insane.

People are saying - let’s just get it done - let’s just leave but the problem is that just leaving on the 31st doesn’t end Brexit you could say it’s when Brexit begins and that Brexit will go on for years.

If we leave without a deal we still have to get a deal, we cannot just stop all trade with our closest neighbours so to repeat we still have to get a deal with the EU which we have just really pissed off by forcing a crash out and have been insulting for many years.

We will have hurt them but the thing is we would have hurt ourselves much, much more, we will be in the weaker position not just with the EU but with virtually every other country in the WTO.

The long term consequences of that will be harsh.