Chezlaw

Who proposes the legislature that is voted on in the EU?
Who proposes the legislature that is voted on in the UK?

really you are completely clueless

This subthread started with your absurd suggestion that the British people were in servitude.

You then moved on to the commission and said they couldn't be voted on (wrong) and couldn't be removed (wrong).

Do you even read your posts?

It's the European Commission. Can you tell me, when do people vote on the members of the European Commission, exactly? Where can you or I express our democratic choice if one or all of them are doing a particularly bad job?

You seem to want to personally deselect the executive and claim that if you can't do this personally the system isn't democratic.

No accepted democratic country that I know of has specific elections for the executive. Some have presidential elections and the president appoints the executive.

As an aside the purpose of democracy is to stop centralisation of power and corruption. The ideal system would probably ban political parties as these centralise power and invite corruption. Constituencies would elect a representative based on a manifesto and the rep would be bound to support the manifesto. Policy for the term would be based on the manifestos. Policy would be implement by an executive. Note that the executive isn't directly elected or directly removed, so that is completely irrelevant as long as the parliament can control them.

Strawman

I don't think strawman means what you think it means

When do people vote on the members of the British Cabinet? Never. The Cabinet is appointed solely by the Prime Minister's patronage. We don't elect governments, only parliaments.

Like all Brexitards, you are completely clueless as to how anything actually works. You just have a paranoid and irrational fear of 'foreigners'.

Ah the old 'executives don't get elected' chestnut.

Every member of the cabinet is a democratically elected MP. You can't avoid being democratically accountable to get in that position.

No member of the EC is elected. You don't have to consider democratic accountability whatsoever to get in that position.

What exactly are you having trouble understanding?

Did you get around to looking up 'democracy' yet?

Don't know if the present lot are, but certainly many non-MPs have been ministers in the past.

Digby Jones & David Young spring to mind.

Lol facts don't matter to the idiot ffs.

https://researchbriefings.parliament...ummary/SN05226

Ministerial appointments

In theory a Government minister does not have to be a member of either House of Parliament.

In practice, however, convention is that ministers must be members of either the House of Commons or House of Lords in order to be accountable to Parliament.

From time to time, Prime Ministers appoint non-parliamentarians as ministers. In recent years such ministers have been appointed to the House of Lords.

lol, seriously. That all you got? Nitpicking?

Ok revise it to 'virtually every member...'

And try and see the real point I'm making...

How is that nitpicking?

You said cabinet members have to be MPs and are therefore accountable directly to voters - and were shown that that is not the case. It was pretty core to your argument about the Commission and changing it to virtually makes no difference whatsoever.

This is the sort of nonsense that went on prior to the referendum - lies and misinformation from the Brexiteers. What next when proved wrong - too many experts?

Works better when we read what he really means 'virtually every immigrant....'

Facts on how the EU and the British government work never stop Diebitter from repeating his nonsense.

I was goign to really nitpick and say that I dont think even the PM has to be an MP

To address your point he only way that makes sense to me. The real political power in the EU rests in the council of Europe and increasingly the parliament. they're accountable to us lot and therefore it's a democracy. I can accept that you dont like the way that power is organised (I'm not even claiming it's all good) but it is still a democracy and we get to chuck out the people in charge if we want change. Personally I want to see a larger role for the parliament and struggle to imagine that not continuing to happen.

May seems to want to just delay this a few more years.

So it looks increasingly likely UK is going to just go into transition period with no deal... which means you guys pay dues, obey EU regs, obey ECJ, and lose your vote.

So what, we've got our sovereignty back n ****.

If May agrees to any extension other than the shortest of extensions with definite leaving at end of it, she'll be gone real soon anyway. Maybe we'll get a leaver in charge then and get it done properly.

Obvious EU is playing this to keep UK in, cos £££££.

None of that earlier stuff happened lads, carry on.

"Get it done properly" - that's the point I was making to you about leavers not wanting the Maysian approach and leavers (as well as remainers obviously) needing a 2nd referendum.

You can hope that the tories will repalce May with someone who will do what you want but I'm not sure you can escape the fact that the majority in parliament is staunchly against a 'proper' brexit.

There's this unsuprising story in the Grauniad:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ly-will-happen

Basically you're most likely as ****ed as we are unless you can get the people involved now, as we reach decision making time. That's a 2nd referendum or maybe a general election.

What would you have on the vote?

I'd go for:

Hard Brexit (with leaving date no later than 29th March 2019)
Stay and fully engage in EU Project (including join the schengen and adopt the Euro)

Both choices enshrined in law and have to be enacted without further delaying tactics on either side.



Let's really get this sorted. A proper in or proper out choice. Piss or get off the pot time.

would you go for that? If not, why not?


Personally I put the odds of remainers shutting up when they lose again at 100000000000000000/1

To be clear, I don't give a fig about the pros and cons of the May approach, I just want the UK to be able to cut trade deals ASAP. That's the chokehold the EU has over its members imo. So that's my red line

Given how well the UK government has negotiated Brexit, can't wait to see those trade deals!

I dont think we want to add to the debate by bringing new issues such as the euro into it so, it would be simple remain as it was vs wto (with some +++'s). If May produces some deal then it would make sense for that as an option as a 3rd option with a transferable vote.

It's not really possible for the law to bind the future but it should be as clear as possible what will happen in the immediate aftermath of the vote so that we dont get back into this mess of arguing about what the result means. I'd like the law to be changed at the same time to require any future vote on EU membership to require a 55% majority for change (there's still nothign to stop that law being scrapped but it makes it harder).

You're right that remainers wont shut up if we lose, nor will leavers if they use. That's not the same as being able to do anything about it politically.


I do get that and the point about leavers wanting a 2nd referendum is weakest with you and much stronger with the harder brexiters. But even you are facing being very disappointed by the result - maybe May will deliver the ability to cut trade deals but how confident are you that she wont end up in some form of customs arrangementbacked by the 'coalition of the reasonable'