|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 8:05:50 GMT
It's got nothing to do with this thread. In fact it's got nothing to do with anything. "Partygate" was a minor sideshow that was blown up into an issue by the Remainer cabals (including the BBC) to try to oust Boris. When people look back on this passage of politics they'll be bemused as to how such a trivial issue could be used to unseat one of best PMs we've ever had. Partygate was an event of major significance, as demonstrated by its consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 8:06:39 GMT
Why do you use the word 'rule'. Governments govern that is not ruling which implies an inability to counter those who rule and an inability to hold them to any sort of account. The EU Council tends to rule and passes that rule to the Commission. The make up of the Council means that a minority could rule over the majority and the same works for QMV. No system is perfect and a country having a veto means that a very small minority could block policy. It's still not democracy if the minority govern/rule the majority. It is if you can get rid of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 8:09:54 GMT
Exactly. Not all, but a portion, of the voting public voted the way they did in the 2016 referendum because they had not been given a referendum in the 90s. If they had been given a referendum in the 90s, they would not have voted that way. The undemocratic UK constitution did not give them a vote in the 90s, so they made their feelings felt when they voted in 2016. Those voters took their anger out on the EU, when all the blame belonged to the UK constitution. Other EU nations don't have an axe to grind because their national Constitutions made it mandatory for a referendum in their country. The UK is one of the few European countries that doesn't have a democratic Constitution, with the result that the British people weren't given a vote. The problem was always the undemocratic nature of the British system, not that of the EU. Not quite I am saying that Heath's taking us in and Major's involving us deeper and Brown's refusal to give a referendum on a Constitutional Treaty all contributed to weakening the case for Remain. We do not know what would have happened, the problem being of course if no had been voted for at anytime then the whole thing is academic as we would not have been members. Realistically it is up to the EU to polish up its democratic medal and demand any member state gives the populace a direct say. However we know that in general terms the EU is intent on allowing tinkering by the electorate by way of a democratic say but sets it face as flint against any consideration of policy and direction being allowed to the electorate.
The UK, at one time, voted for governments whose directions were radically different. No longer as each party is intent on being a better manager of a consensual system that works for them but leaves the poor British electorate floundering around seeking true differences and finding none. Direction is decided at statesman level and most politicians cannot wait to be movers and shakers on the world stage. At least Trump with all his faults decided rightly that the only constituency that mattered was that of the US and it was their needs and wishes that were paramount. You don't seem to have grasped the point. The EU does allow consideration of policy in countries that have a written constitution. The treaty sets out what policies may be made. When the people vote in a referendum for that treaty, they are voting for those policies. It is only in countries like the UK, where there is no written constitution, and therefore no requirement for a referendum, that the people don't get a say on policy. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 8:11:31 GMT
It's still not democracy if the minority govern/rule the majority. It is if you can get rid of them. No. There is dictatorship by a minority, which may very well be replaced by another minority at 5 yearly intervals. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 8:15:18 GMT
It's got nothing to do with this thread. In fact it's got nothing to do with anything. "Partygate" was a minor sideshow that was blown up into an issue by the Remainer cabals (including the BBC) to try to oust Boris. When people look back on this passage of politics they'll be bemused as to how such a trivial issue could be used to unseat one of best PMs we've ever had. Partygate was an event of major significance, as demonstrated by its consequences. The consequences depend very much on how parliament reacts. Boris was hounded becasue he broke the rules, Andrew Bridgen was hounded becasue he obeyed the rules but raised the wrong subject |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 8:16:12 GMT
Partygate was an event of major significance, as demonstrated by its consequences. The consequences depend very much on how parliament reacts. Boris was hounded becasue he broke the rules, Andrew Bridgen was hounded becasue he obeyed the rules but raised the wrong subject Okay. Nobody's disputing that Boris was hounded because he broke the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 8:22:00 GMT
Not quite I am saying that Heath's taking us in and Major's involving us deeper and Brown's refusal to give a referendum on a Constitutional Treaty all contributed to weakening the case for Remain. We do not know what would have happened, the problem being of course if no had been voted for at anytime then the whole thing is academic as we would not have been members. Realistically it is up to the EU to polish up its democratic medal and demand any member state gives the populace a direct say. However we know that in general terms the EU is intent on allowing tinkering by the electorate by way of a democratic say but sets it face as flint against any consideration of policy and direction being allowed to the electorate.
The UK, at one time, voted for governments whose directions were radically different. No longer as each party is intent on being a better manager of a consensual system that works for them but leaves the poor British electorate floundering around seeking true differences and finding none. Direction is decided at statesman level and most politicians cannot wait to be movers and shakers on the world stage. At least Trump with all his faults decided rightly that the only constituency that mattered was that of the US and it was their needs and wishes that were paramount. You don't seem to have grasped the point. The EU does allow consideration of policy in countries that have a written constitution. The treaty sets out what policies may be made. When the people vote in a referendum for that treaty, they are voting for those policies. It is only in countries like the UK, where there is no written constitution, and therefore no requirement for a referendum, that the people don't get a say on policy. It does not 'allow' it has to accept. The British Constitution works in a different way with safeguards being set in many different ways. What the Europhiles did was to use the weakness in an otherwise robust Constitution to extend power beyond the limits of the State and creating an area over which the British electorate had no influence. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 8:24:16 GMT
You don't seem to have grasped the point. The EU does allow consideration of policy in countries that have a written constitution. The treaty sets out what policies may be made. When the people vote in a referendum for that treaty, they are voting for those policies. It is only in countries like the UK, where there is no written constitution, and therefore no requirement for a referendum, that the people don't get a say on policy. It does not 'allow' it has to accept. The British Constitution works in a different way with safeguards being set in many different ways. What the Europhiles did was to use the weakness in an otherwise robust Constitution to extend power beyond the limits of the State and creating an area over which the British electorate had no influence. No, the member states don't have to accept if they have a written constitution that requires a referendum. It was only the UK that had to accept, because its constitution allowed the government to make the decision for the people. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 8:24:23 GMT
The consequences depend very much on how parliament reacts. Boris was hounded becasue he broke the rules, Andrew Bridgen was hounded becasue he obeyed the rules but raised the wrong subject Okay. Nobody's disputing that Boris was hounded because he broke the rules. The rules he broke were lying to parliament. Lying to the British electorate seems quite de jure. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 8:25:31 GMT
Okay. Nobody's disputing that Boris was hounded because he broke the rules. The rules he broke were lying to parliament. Lying to the British electorate seems quite de jure. And attending a party in contravention of Parliament's instructions. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 8:27:06 GMT
It does not 'allow' it has to accept. The British Constitution works in a different way with safeguards being set in many different ways. What the Europhiles did was to use the weakness in an otherwise robust Constitution to extend power beyond the limits of the State and creating an area over which the British electorate had no influence. No, the member states don't have to accept if they have a written constitution that requires a referendum. It was only the UK that had to accept, because its constitution allowed the government to make the decision for the people. You missed the point the EU does not allow as you said, it has to accept whatever the written constitutions say. It could have forced the UK to seek a mandate from teh electorate as a condition of membership it chose not to do that and in effect colluded with Heath, Major and Brown. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 8:28:48 GMT
No, the member states don't have to accept if they have a written constitution that requires a referendum. It was only the UK that had to accept, because its constitution allowed the government to make the decision for the people. You missed the point the EU does not allow as you said, it has to accept whatever the written constitutions say. It could have forced the UK to seek a mandate from teh electorate as a condition of membership it chose not to do that and in effect colluded with Heath, Major and Brown. LOL! The EU could have forced the UK to change its constitution? I don't think so. Which treaty article allows the EU to do that? Which treaty article allows the EU to compel a referendum? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 8:35:54 GMT
You missed the point the EU does not allow as you said, it has to accept whatever the written constitutions say. It could have forced the UK to seek a mandate from teh electorate as a condition of membership it chose not to do that and in effect colluded with Heath, Major and Brown. LOL! The EU could have forced the UK to change its constitution? I don't think so. Which treaty article allows the EU to do that? Which treaty article allows the EU to compel a referendum? There is none, I am making the point that to have Democratic credentials you have to shown them to be in operation and if a Constitution fails to allow a referendum then the EU should have flexed its self stated democratic muscles. It is quite content to do that when countries obey their electorates instead of teh EU treaties. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 17, 2023 8:38:02 GMT
LOL! The EU could have forced the UK to change its constitution? I don't think so. Which treaty article allows the EU to do that? Which treaty article allows the EU to compel a referendum? There is none, I am making the point that to have Democratic credentials you have to shown them to be in operation and if a Constitution fails to allow a referendum then the EU should have flexed its self stated democratic muscles. It is quite content to do that when countries obey their electorates instead of teh EU treaties. So, you agree that the EU had no legal authority to compel a referendum? If so, you must agree that it wasn't the EU's fault that Major didn't hold a referendum. Where does the fault lie, then? Obviously with Major and the UK's outdated, undemocratic constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 17, 2023 8:46:29 GMT
There is none, I am making the point that to have Democratic credentials you have to shown them to be in operation and if a Constitution fails to allow a referendum then the EU should have flexed its self stated democratic muscles. It is quite content to do that when countries obey their electorates instead of teh EU treaties. So, you agree that the EU had no legal authority to compel a referendum? If so, you must agree that it wasn't the EU's fault that Major didn't hold a referendum. Where does the fault lie, then? Obviously with Major and the UK's outdated, undemocratic constitution. Whoa. We are not discussing legality we are discussing democracy. The EU alone decides its membership and on what conditions. The Council can decide what those conditions are and demand the Commission makes rules accordingly. The EU are supposed to be paragons of virtue when it comes to democracy but they were more than happy to see the UK electorate seconded into a Constitutional sphere without a direct say. Legally correct but then democracy depends very much on morals. |
|
