Almost There! Hexus EU Referendum Straw Poll #2

[Noxvayl]

Oh and both sides stand guilty of attempting to adversely manipulate people with emotion. To be blunt I've had better debates with drunks in pubs than the farce we just went through.

Couldn't agree more

[wazzickle]

In terms of world peace, I'd say that Germany has the memory of WW2 fairly well-embedded in their consciousness and don't particularly want to cause trouble, whereas Russia are out for a fight in a big, big way.

[Phage]

The "identity" of any nation is a reflection of both the people that are in it and the long history that brought them there. In the case of the UK that includes monarchy, christianity and common law. However, such things evolve over time. For example we are certainly less religious in the UK now, but also have a great deal many more faiths being practised. Consequently the system has had to evolve to take that into account.

But you haven't defined identity. Yes, I know it's a trick question. Mostly it's used as an excuse for nationalism, and we know where that ends up.

Furthermore the majority may set the "tone" of the government, but the ultimate responsibility of the latter is to ALL inhabitants. Consequently they have to strike a balance which reflects the wishes of the majority, but not at the expense of everyone else.

There's no doubt that this was a poll about inequality. Is that what you're trying to get at ?

So is democracy merely "a country in which power is held by elected representatives" or "the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves" ?

You'd have to ask a political scientist. I would imagine that the neither of those statements is true IRL

Sudden change in a system always creates "chaos" as the components within it rearrange / adapt to the new circumstances. Perhaps chaos is too emotive a word as it covers a wide variety of outcomes. I'm certainly not suggesting that there would be rioting in the streets. However, to suggest that we could swap from one to the other in one fell swoop without any disruption, confusion etc. is wishful thinking. There is also the issue that uncertainty creates fear and people have a nasty habit of voting strangely when in the grip of that emotion.

I thought we had agreed that sudden change would be a bad idea ? But we can easily swap from one to other without any 'chaos' - Of course. Changes are made all the time.

I don't deny that there are those in the Lords who exhibit bias and so forth. That's why I want to see it reformed. However, I know from speaking to a number of people that work within government that there are those who do make a positive effort to discharge their responsibilities properly. It isn't an "all good" or "all bad" situation, so there is no need for radical change.

I disagree here. You appera to be saying that so long as a few are trying to be good representatives, there is nothing wrong with the system. You appear to be happy with unelected representation with no care to their skills or indeed capabilities. I am not. (Taxation without representation ?)

Now you may disagree and that is your prerogative. You say I could vote for someone who is qualified etc. but do you really think that we'd end up with a sensible upper house in this country? Maybe in the future, but right now with our media etc. not a chance.

Again there is no foundation for this statement whatsoever. You appear to be saying that we incapable of electing an upper house, but are Ok with a Parliament ? Of course we can elect an Upper House ! In fact if we used PR it would have avoided this referendum debacle by giving a voice to all the people who felt that their vote didn't matter. (i.e. 4m UKIP voters)

Both MPs and Lords are privileged in the sense that they hold a position of power. However, one is elected and the other currently is not. This can create a perception of "earned" for one and "entitled" in respect to the other (pun intended). The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that neither system guarantees quality.

That is not what I said. The Lords are priveliged in terms of their wealth and education, and that is how they get power. Nothing to do with a Protestant work ethic.
Further, there are no guarantees, and no one is suggesting that there could be. However you can change an elected House, and you can't with Bishops and Party Donors.

People tunnel vision onto the negative connotation of privileged and lose a sense of perspective.

It's not a connotation - it's a fact. The're unelected, and are unanswerable to the people. What is the 'perspective' that people lack ? The ability to be happy with hereditary peers ?

Neither the house of commons nor lords is entirely representative of the country

Incorrect. One is elected by the people and the other is not. And of course - if the Parliament is not representative, you can change it.

and the same stands in terms of capacity to make sensible decisions. Yes we can, in some places, vote MPs out of office and are not in a position to do the same with Lords. However, as "electing" people is no guarantee of ability etc.

No-one said anything about guarantees !! By elecing a representative to a position you can control the level of ability to some extent. This is why the Monster RL party hasn't got any seats.

changing the Lords system to that merely because the existing one offends the sensibilities of a section of the population is asinine. There are a whole host of other options we can and should look at to improve how it operates.

Asinine ? To get an elected representive ?
To be happy with no representation ? That would be truly moronic.

1. On the web and in real life, though it is certainly more prevalent on the former. However, if you consider the amount of time some people spend in "public" environs on the net the distinction is moot. It all has an effect.

You appear to be stating that it is impossible to have a debate ? It just means that we need to introduce a system whereby all voices are heard more equally. Ooooh perhaps some sort of elected representative could debate things on our behalf in an open chamber ?

2. Farage / Geldoff... and they are far from the only ones.

Indeed. So you accept that is right and correct for MPs to enter the public debate. But not celebrities ? How do you reconcile this with having an unelected upper house that makes decisions. They are just the celebrities of their day.

3. I do vote with my wallet, but it goes way beyond Murdoch. Media survives on advertising and as controversy and hyperbole sell better, guess what we end up with.

This is fatalism. Nothing is set in stone. If you disagree, lobby your MP, write letters or even stand yourself. Just throwing your hands up is a cop out.

We didn't make the situation necessarily worse, more precipitated the need for it's resolution. Whether that will be worse than them festering on before being dealt with who know.

Yes, yes we did. In fact we were congratualted for it by Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders.

Finally I probably should have said "better off" in terms of the sliding scale of outcomes both for us and Europe.

This is not clear. What outcomes ? How are you measuring them ? Certainly we have made us and the EU poorer as well as increasing nationalism and racism.

I may hope that in the long run things will work out better, but neither I nor anyone else has no way of knowing. Though the same is true had we voted remain...

Again not true. Economists and business had a very good idea of how things would have worked for the next few years if we'd remained. No-one knows for certain, but we can all calculate probablilities.

Oh and both sides stand guilty of attempting to adversely manipulate people with emotion. To be blunt I've had better debates with drunks in pubs than the farce we just went through.

Strange, I don't find Mark Carney, the leader of every party in the Parliament, or Christine Lagarde in my local. yet their views were widely publicised. Or did you discount them as Project Fear. Were you tired of Experts ?

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Hi everyone its been a long time since i posted here as i have been traveling in peru for the past month and could not vote as my postal vote did not arrive before i left.

Here are a few things i would like to say on this matter:

First of all, i voted in because i am happy with how things are and how we trade and work alongside the other 26 european countries and like the ability to travel and potentially work in 26 countries without an issue.

2nd of all i believe that if we was to leave(we are now leaving) there is no guarantees on what will happen with existing trade rules and immigration

3rd of all, if it wasnt for the EU i and many others would probably never have met there current missus/wife.

Now back to the results:

I personally believe that many that voted out did not understand the concequences of leaving the EU and where not educated enough on the matter to make the best formal vote on this referendum. I also believe that a small minority voted out just to make a stand/loud voice to the government but wasnt expecting there vote to count and make us leave(A bit like betting on the underdog just for the sake of it).

There is also talks on how we will try to negotiate same conditions as it is now for trade and immigration and if this is correct, then the people who votes leave for immigration, are going to be left bitterly disappointed that things may actually not change at all if we have our say in the matter.

I also read and watched countless of videos from the Leave side of the campaign and to my amazement, many have been mislead and lied to.

Things that where lied for example are:
Uk not having a say if Turkey is allowed to join the EU(not true, whoever wants to join needs an unanimous decision by all eu members)
Money spent on being in the EU will be used for the NHS(confirmed that it wont be)

There are other examples but i cant remember all and will try and post the sources i generated from this.

We also have the likes of david cameroon, boris and now Nigel farage all jumping ship and not taking responsibilities of the outcome.

Why? because they simply dont know how to fix this mess they have created and campaigned for.

Those are my two cents on it all

[DanceswithUnix]

Looks like the UK may have stirred things up in the Canada EU trade treaty signing: http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy...ails-analysis/

I shall watch this with some interest.

TLDR: If all countries are allowed to veto, then the EU is too big for any legislation to get through, so this was expected to be forced through. With all eyes now on the EU processes, the EU cannot cut corners and are forced to allow voting. But if CETO doesn't get through, what chance has TTIP got? Even if veto'ed, it looks like the agreement could be put in place anyway, at least for a bit.

[Corky34]

I don't get it, previously the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament needed to agree to CETA, now it's also going to also need individual EU governments to ratify it but the heads of those governments already sit on the council so could have blocked it if they wanted anyway, whats changed?

[scaryjim]

My reading of the article is that the deal need to be ratified by the parliaments of the EU members, rather than their governments, and it's worth remembering that a number of EU countries have minority or loose coalition governments due to election by PR. So the head of the government doesn't necessarily represent the majority view of the parliament (a situation the UK will probably be in if we get a euro-sceptic Tory leader - I believe there are enough europhile Conservative MPs to push the pro-EU faction within Westminster into an overall majority). And of course there's always the risk of rebels within the government voting down a proposition too (again, something that might happen if the decision to invoke article 50 is put to the Commons on a free-vote basis).

So something being ratified by the head of a government doesn't necessarily mean that it will be ratified by the rest of that government, or the parliament they lead.

[Corky34]

That explains things.
I wrongly assumed other governments were like ours where legislation can be passed without a care for what other parties think.

[peterb]

That explains things.
I wrongly assumed other governments were like ours where legislation can be passed without a care for what other parties think.

I know that was partially tongue in cheek, but all political parties get a chance to look at legislation in the committee stages before it goes to a vote, and the House of Lords also gets a chance to scrutinise it - there main function.

However measures to implement manifesto commitments have special stud because they were the items that public specifically voted for at a general election.

[DanceswithUnix]

That explains things.
I wrongly assumed other governments were like ours where legislation can be passed without a care for what other parties think.

Introduction of a parallel legal system with the power to fine governments for billions is something that should probably be debated before it gets signed off by the head of state.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy...ip-what-is-it/

[Corky34]

I know that was partially tongue in cheek, but all political parties get a chance to look at legislation in the committee stages before it goes to a vote, and the House of Lords also gets a chance to scrutinise it - there main function.

However measures to implement manifesto commitments have special stud because they were the items that public specifically voted for at a general election.

That wasn't my intention, it didn't even enter my mind when i first posted that i didn't understand, it wasn't until scaryjim explained it that i had one of those Doh moments.

I thought with our FPTP system that effectively the government of the day can pass legislation without a care for what other parties think, i get what you say about it going to a committee stage and tHoL but can they force a change if the government of the day doesn't want to and have a majority in the commons and tHoL?

Introduction of a parallel legal system with the power to fine governments for billions is something that should probably be debated before it gets signed off by the head of state.

Yea I'm not saying it shouldn't but you'd think being a responsible head of state would mean you'd canvas opinions from politicians in your own country before signing it, i don't know maybe hold a vote or a debate about if you as the head of state should sign it or not.

[peterb]

That wasn't my intention, it didn't even enter my mind when i first posted that i didn't understand, it wasn't until scaryjim explained it that i had one of those Doh moments.

I thought with our FPTP system that effectively the government of the day can pass legislation without a care for what other parties think, i get what you say about it going to a committee stage and tHoL but can they force a change if the government of the day doesn't want to and have a majority in the commons and tHoL?

Legislation can and often is ammended as it passes through the Parliamentary process. There have been some changes in the life of this Parliament, notably changes to the last Finance Bill.

[Corky34]

But theoretically the government of the day could just say no we're not going to change it, outside changes for legal reasons, or do they change it to keep good relations, good faith, or something like that? I guess what I'm asking is if they wanted could they just stick two fingers up and refuse to change something if they were confident all their own MPs would support it.

[DanceswithUnix]

But theoretically the government of the day could just say no we're not going to change it, outside changes for legal reasons, or do they change it to keep good relations, good faith, or something like that? I guess what I'm asking is if they wanted could they just stick two fingers up and refuse to change something if they were confident all their own MPs would support it.

They could, but you can only get so much through parliament before you are kicked out and most MPs do want to be voted back into parliament.

So two fingers treatment only really works if the first legislation you pass is to make the PM a lifetime president of the new Democratic Republic of the UK and ban opposing political parties. As long as you have something like the House of Lords to block that, the damage should be limited.

[peterb]

But theoretically the government of the day could just say no we're not going to change it, outside changes for legal reasons, or do they change it to keep good relations, good faith, or something like that? I guess what I'm asking is if they wanted could they just stick two fingers up and refuse to change something if they were confident all their own MPs would support it.

Well, yes it can, which is why too large a majority is not always a good thing. Of course, a large majority tended to indicate large support for the proposed policies, which was true when there were two main political parties.

That argument doesn't necessarily hold true when there are multiple parties, where the overall vote doesn't reflect the number of elected MPs. UKIP () for example received 4 million or so votes, but only had one MP. Under a proportional representation system, they would have had greater representation. In general PR tends to favour minority parties, which is why it was top of the agenda for the LibDems, whose parliamentary representation was disproportionately small compared with the votes polled.

But under the UK system, an MP is (in theory) elected to be a voice in parliament for their constituents, which as I said in a previous post, is why some MPs Buck the popular trend because they are regarded as being good constituency MPs. (Tony Benn for example). It is also why MPs hold regular 'surgeries' so they can meet with constituents who have concerns. They also have parliamentary staff to research and answer constituents letters. And if an MP asks a question about a matter either in Parliament or directly to a Ministry, those questions are answered in a very tight timescale. Most Ministries have PQ branch staffed with senior civil servants to provide answers to their Ministers in response to questions from MPs in the House, or asked as part of the Parliamentary process.

But to get back to the representation, a weak Government with a very low overall majority is not necessarily in a good position because it can't achieve anything, and while a cynic might say that is a good thing, a Government does need to govern, and that means instituting change in response to (and sometimes initiating) changes in society.

The last coalition government was praised because the LibDems were seen to moderate the Conservatives, but they compromised some of their principles (tuition fees) and blocked some important changes to constituency boundaries which would have slightly reorganised constituency boundaries so they were more equally represented.

And while politicians generally have a bad press, (and for good reason in some cases - expenses for example) I think most are hard working, and to enter politics to make a difference for good - although the two sides of the political spectrum have very different ideas about how that can be achieved.

There was a comment about David Cameron being a 'horrible person'. Well, I've never met him, but he seems to me to be a perfectly nice family guy, passionate about what he does. One thing I have noticed is how much Prime Ministers age in appearance during their job. It's not a job I'd like to do.

[Ambersuccubus]

Re: David Cameron being...well, not a nice person...I've seen how he behaves in conference when he thinks only other Torys are watching...he's AWFUL!