Tony Benn talked about the idea that hoping an unelected EU commission would provide policies more in keeping with what Labour voters want - he equated it to preferring a good King over a bad parliament. You can change parliament but you can't change a King. We can't change the EU. What will EU policies be in 10/20 years and beyond ? If they succeed in developing an army then God help us if they decide to provoke Russia any more. Or if they swing extreme right wing ? Time to leave Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The majority of people have not voted for this government or the proceeding ones. They have no mandate. They are as unelected as the EU. I am no great fan of the European project but I do quite like paid holidays, paternity and maternity pay, limits on the hours I can work. I don't care who can guarantee that I am not treated like a Victorian serf I know this government can't and won't. I'm also not naive enough to believe that Nigel, Boris and Duncan Smith care that foreigners are putting pressure on public services and are using xenophobia to prejudice to further there real aims of making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Another reason big business likes us in, like Amazon and Google is so they can move their money about. With us being in the EU they can earn money here, but pay tax elsewhere...
That is not true...they have the mandate that one of the world's oldest democracies gives them....and in 2011 the British people voted to keep it that way...you and I may not like the system...but to suggest it is undemocratic when the people wish it to be done that way is plainly wrong.
I accept your opinion and respect it, however I don't agree with it. I do agree that Cameron and his cronies are no friends of the working man and the north of England. It has been happening for decades, after all we were in the EU when Thatcher destroyed the mining and Steel industries and left Liverpool to rot after the dockers strike. Europe did nothing to protect us then. Ultimately the only defence we have is to vote them out. This as an option is indeed under threat with a non elected commission deciding our future. Regarding the other funding not accounted for (town centre spending etc), don't forget we are not being given anything, we are just getting some of our own money back. these funds and more would still be available to us but it would be our decision where we spend it. We have not even touched on border control, NHS overload, Schools and housing shortages. All of these being made worse due to the net migration figures. Last year it was 333,000 all these people have to be catered for in our society. I am not talking about benefit scroungers, I am aware that the monetary benefit to the UK from immigrants since 2000 is £25 billion . However that figure becomes irrelevant when you consider that since 2000 we have paid £105 billion (net) to the EU. I might add that I recently retired and now live in the Canaries and I would not benefit Brexit. I am not forming my opinion on personal benefit, I am basing my vote on what I believe is best for my country. On that note I have to say, its not for me, I'm out.
Who the fek believes owt thats saved will be spent in the north.....and if you believe any money will be pumped into the NHS then you are living on the wrong planet.
Posted it on here before. I know loads of people who keep going on about democracy but they're usually the same people who don't want proportional representation, are happy with having the House of Lords, want the Queen as head of state, we're against the Scottish being granted a referendum on independence, are happy with the Tories current proposed electoral boundary changes. There is a valid argument to be made on democracy (and excellent people in this thread who genuinely believe in that argument). But anyone who doesn't want to reform all of the above is being disingenuous if they say they want to leave the EU because it's undemocratic.
The Guardian view on changing constituency boundaries: unfair and undemocratic http://gu.com/p/4gkf4?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
What about the reasonable people who simply value the idea of voting in or out someone or some party that they actually know recognise and understand? PR is an option as far as democracy is concerned. it is not a magical solution. And we had the chance to vote for some measure of it, but didn't. The House of Lords should be abolished but rather quaintly it seems to do more good than harm. The Queen is a bauble who does no harm. The Scottish got their referendum - it will no doubt be wonderfully democratic to give them another vote on it as soon as the SNP think they can win it. The electoral boundary changes are left to others to decide upon - at present nobody seems to deny they are not neutral. I'm still a democrat without feeling the need to reform all the above. But I'm less democratically represented by a European parliament than I am one at home.
This chap sums my view up pretty much http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/the-ghost-of-politics-past.html?m=1 http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/call-it-what-you-like-but-it-aint.html?m=1 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's avoiding the issue...the people voted to retain that system....all systems are flawed to one extent or another...that one is the preferred choice by legal referendum.
None of the things you mentioned above are undemocratic. ..if the people vote to change or abolish them that will happen...just because you and I don't necessarily like or support them does not make them un democratic.
It's not avoiding the issue at all. The last government literally not 1 person voted for so had no mandate at all. This less than the majority voted for so again they have no popular mandate. We have an outdated electoral system that does not deliver democracy and completely weights towards the traditional parties. Where is the democracy for those who voted UKIP or Green. Where is the representation? You stated the issue was a lack of ability to maintain democracy. So the electoral system and whether it can or can't deliver that is key. European MPs are noted for in a fairer system so is actually more representative.
when the tories attacked us in the 1980's they did so on the back of growing resentment toward the unions,especially us,the miners.They got away with it because we were in a minority and much of the country didnt give a toss about us,Stripping holidays etc will affect a much broader base of the working population which for me would be a huge vote loser for them if they did try and go down this route,maybe i'm wrong,but i honestly feel that paid holidays would be a step too far.
I generally agree that PR is, on the face of it fairer..however the current system gives you the opportunity to elect your constituency MP , you can choose to elect the right person for your area... or not elect the wrong one...under PR that is lost. Whilst PR itself wasn't a candidate for the 2011 referendum , the AV system was and a change was rejected by 68 % to 32 % . The systems can be argued ad infinitum , they have strengths and weaknesses , for me it can be argued that PR gives a broader national emphasis , although FPTP gives a better local emphasis... but the bottom line is in referendum 68% voted to keep the current system.