|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 24, 2019 13:34:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jun 24, 2019 14:28:04 GMT
I’m going to throw my toys out of my pram I demand there is a televised debate between the two candidates We have the right to know what these people think we’ll at least till Halloween
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jun 24, 2019 15:03:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 16:00:56 GMT
I’m going to throw my toys out of my pram I demand there is a televised debate between the two candidates We have the right to know what these people think we’ll at least till Halloween 😁😁😁
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jun 24, 2019 16:12:15 GMT
I’m going to throw my toys out of my pram I demand there is a televised debate between the two candidates We have the right to know what these people think we’ll at least till Halloween Why are there no calls for investigating the private lives of these two, we already have one alcoholic running the show who bitch slaps people in public, I suppose these can't be any more dangerous or can they ?
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jun 24, 2019 17:14:00 GMT
I’m going to throw my toys out of my pram I demand there is a televised debate between the two candidates We have the right to know what these people think we’ll at least till Halloween Why are there no calls for investigating the private lives of these two, we already have one alcoholic running the show who bitch slaps people in public, I suppose these can't be any more dangerous or can they ? Scutiny you daft bugger, you'll be asking them to be subjected to a clean audit next
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jun 24, 2019 17:15:02 GMT
I’m going to throw my toys out of my pram I demand there is a televised debate between the two candidates We have the right to know what these people think we’ll at least till Halloween Mr Barnier, where does all the gravy go?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 24, 2019 18:15:13 GMT
Can anyone on the Remain side explain why there has never really been any debate/ scrutiny on any EU wide issue or policy or election? I just don't get how anyone can argue to be in the EU and disenfranchise the country. www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/09/there-is-a-strong-leftwing-case-against-the-euFrom the link above...... What Matheson’s arguments boil down to is the following: (a) in a globalised world, economic and social policies have to be decided at a supranational level; and (b) membership of the EU prevents a Conservative government from implementing some of its possible policies. The problem with (a) is that it is a fantasy that the EU will implement the kinds of policies that socialists might want, given its fundamental character as a free market, with the four freedoms enshrined in a constitutional order that there is no way of changing short of a set of new treaties. Democracy is a better bet. As for (b), be careful what you wish for: structures that impede Tory policies are just as likely to be used against socialist ones, and frequently have been. Ultimately it is not up to any of us to decide on the matter, but up, in the end, to a constitutional court whose decisions (unlike those of the UK supreme court) cannot be overriden by any political or legislative process. It is the hazard of tying our future in fundamental respects to this structure that motivates us to support a clean break with the EU. Richard Tuck Professor of government, Harvard University, Maurice Glasman Labour, House of Lords • My Labour colleague Chris Matheson is wrong to dismiss the long and principled history of leftwing opposition to the European Union and its predecessors. Labour politicians as different as leader Hugh Gaitskell and Tony Benn based their opposition to this European project on sound principles of sovereignty and democracy. Gaitskell famously told the 1962 Labour conference that joining the Common Market “would be the end of Britain as an independent European state” and Tony Benn, referring to the European commission, argued that if we can’t “get rid of you, we don’t have a democracy”. Since the Enlightenment it has been the commonly held belief of the left that those who decide on our laws and taxes should be able to be removed by the electorate; the EU does not allow this. The left was also united against Margaret Thatcher’s monetarist policies, which put 3 million people out of work in the UK. This was one of the tools used to weaken trade unions. Why on earth should we now support the EU, which has the EU stability and growth pact at its core? This is Thatcherism internationalised, and the resulting deflation has put a generation of young people on the dole across the whole of Southern Europe. The EU damages the economy as well as democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 20:21:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jun 24, 2019 23:00:41 GMT
Wasn't there a live TV debate between the candidates prior to the EU elections? Or was that for something else?
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Jun 25, 2019 5:41:25 GMT
Wasn't there a live TV debate between the candidates prior to the EU elections? Or was that for something else? Was this on one of the BBC channels or the ITV ones? Must have been one or the other presumably because I'm aware from the current debate that they're very hot on scutiny of EU matters.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jun 25, 2019 8:41:04 GMT
Wasn't there a live TV debate between the candidates prior to the EU elections? Or was that for something else? Was this on one of the BBC channels or the ITV ones? Must have been one or the other presumably because I'm aware from the current debate that they're very hot on scutiny of EU matters. Even better than that, you can watch it online without the need to pay a licence fee:
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 25, 2019 13:02:28 GMT
Was this on one of the BBC channels or the ITV ones? Must have been one or the other presumably because I'm aware from the current debate that they're very hot on scutiny of EU matters. Even better than that, you can watch it online without the need to pay a licence fee: And how many people in the UK are actually interested? How much discussion has there been on the EE board? On MSM? The UK electorate are not interested. Ridiculous to give our sovereignty away to remote anti democratic bureaucrats. How do we influence the election? The Commission dictates EU policy....very important.... should be scrutinised eh?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jun 25, 2019 16:13:08 GMT
Even better than that, you can watch it online without the need to pay a licence fee: And how many people in the UK are actually interested? How much discussion has there been on the EE board? On MSM? The UK electorate are not interested. Ridiculous to give our sovereignty away to remote anti democratic bureaucrats. How do we influence the election? The Commission dictates EU policy....very important.... should be scrutinised eh? You influence the make up of the Commission by voting in the EU elections. The new Commission will have to be voted in by the democratically-elected Parliament, and can also be voted out by the Parliament. Certainly we should be more interested and we should scrutinise more, although probably not as much as we should scrutinise our own politicians who are ultimately responsible for the direction of our country. But the more scrutiny on politicians the better, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jun 25, 2019 17:23:23 GMT
Can anyone on the Remain side explain why there has never really been any debate/ scrutiny on any EU wide issue or policy or election? I just don't get how anyone can argue to be in the EU and disenfranchise the country. www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/09/there-is-a-strong-leftwing-case-against-the-euFrom the link above...... What Matheson’s arguments boil down to is the following: (a) in a globalised world, economic and social policies have to be decided at a supranational level; and (b) membership of the EU prevents a Conservative government from implementing some of its possible policies. The problem with (a) is that it is a fantasy that the EU will implement the kinds of policies that socialists might want, given its fundamental character as a free market, with the four freedoms enshrined in a constitutional order that there is no way of changing short of a set of new treaties. Democracy is a better bet. As for (b), be careful what you wish for: structures that impede Tory policies are just as likely to be used against socialist ones, and frequently have been. Ultimately it is not up to any of us to decide on the matter, but up, in the end, to a constitutional court whose decisions (unlike those of the UK supreme court) cannot be overriden by any political or legislative process. It is the hazard of tying our future in fundamental respects to this structure that motivates us to support a clean break with the EU. Richard Tuck Professor of government, Harvard University, Maurice Glasman Labour, House of Lords • My Labour colleague Chris Matheson is wrong to dismiss the long and principled history of leftwing opposition to the European Union and its predecessors. Labour politicians as different as leader Hugh Gaitskell and Tony Benn based their opposition to this European project on sound principles of sovereignty and democracy. Gaitskell famously told the 1962 Labour conference that joining the Common Market “would be the end of Britain as an independent European state” and Tony Benn, referring to the European commission, argued that if we can’t “get rid of you, we don’t have a democracy”. Since the Enlightenment it has been the commonly held belief of the left that those who decide on our laws and taxes should be able to be removed by the electorate; the EU does not allow this. The left was also united against Margaret Thatcher’s monetarist policies, which put 3 million people out of work in the UK. This was one of the tools used to weaken trade unions. Why on earth should we now support the EU, which has the EU stability and growth pact at its core? This is Thatcherism internationalised, and the resulting deflation has put a generation of young people on the dole across the whole of Southern Europe. The EU damages the economy as well as democracy. Good points, however I would add that we have lots of so called scrutiny (very superficial, I would call it) here and that doesn't make any difference , we still get governed by the same old Etonians representing only the same elite group of super rich. Look at the 2 we are faced with now. It's like a choice between syphilis and herpes. Power attracts only the criminal, the corrupt, the narcissists and the incurable egotists, history repeatedly tells this but we never seem to learn.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 25, 2019 18:43:21 GMT
Can anyone on the Remain side explain why there has never really been any debate/ scrutiny on any EU wide issue or policy or election? I just don't get how anyone can argue to be in the EU and disenfranchise the country. www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/09/there-is-a-strong-leftwing-case-against-the-euFrom the link above...... What Matheson’s arguments boil down to is the following: (a) in a globalised world, economic and social policies have to be decided at a supranational level; and (b) membership of the EU prevents a Conservative government from implementing some of its possible policies. The problem with (a) is that it is a fantasy that the EU will implement the kinds of policies that socialists might want, given its fundamental character as a free market, with the four freedoms enshrined in a constitutional order that there is no way of changing short of a set of new treaties. Democracy is a better bet. As for (b), be careful what you wish for: structures that impede Tory policies are just as likely to be used against socialist ones, and frequently have been. Ultimately it is not up to any of us to decide on the matter, but up, in the end, to a constitutional court whose decisions (unlike those of the UK supreme court) cannot be overriden by any political or legislative process. It is the hazard of tying our future in fundamental respects to this structure that motivates us to support a clean break with the EU. Richard Tuck Professor of government, Harvard University, Maurice Glasman Labour, House of Lords • My Labour colleague Chris Matheson is wrong to dismiss the long and principled history of leftwing opposition to the European Union and its predecessors. Labour politicians as different as leader Hugh Gaitskell and Tony Benn based their opposition to this European project on sound principles of sovereignty and democracy. Gaitskell famously told the 1962 Labour conference that joining the Common Market “would be the end of Britain as an independent European state” and Tony Benn, referring to the European commission, argued that if we can’t “get rid of you, we don’t have a democracy”. Since the Enlightenment it has been the commonly held belief of the left that those who decide on our laws and taxes should be able to be removed by the electorate; the EU does not allow this. The left was also united against Margaret Thatcher’s monetarist policies, which put 3 million people out of work in the UK. This was one of the tools used to weaken trade unions. Why on earth should we now support the EU, which has the EU stability and growth pact at its core? This is Thatcherism internationalised, and the resulting deflation has put a generation of young people on the dole across the whole of Southern Europe. The EU damages the economy as well as democracy. Good points, however I would add that we have lots of so called scrutiny (very superficial, I would call it) here and that doesn't make any difference , we still get governed by the same old Etonians representing only the same elite group of super rich. Look at the 2 we are faced with now. It's like a choice between syphilis and herpes. Power attracts only the criminal, the corrupt, the narcissists and the incurable egotists, history repeatedly tells this but we never seem to learn. Agree to some extent but the answer is not to make things worse, to give up the the hard fought vote, to allow our political masters more power, to be less accountable, more remote, top down , not even pretending to understand or put our interests first. Benn was right. Rach generation has to fight for democracy again. It's never won. Politicians are only leant power and must return it undiminished...its not theirs to give away. He was also correct about the 5 questions thst we should be able to ask of those we elect
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 25, 2019 18:50:04 GMT
And how many people in the UK are actually interested? How much discussion has there been on the EE board? On MSM? The UK electorate are not interested. Ridiculous to give our sovereignty away to remote anti democratic bureaucrats. How do we influence the election? The Commission dictates EU policy....very important.... should be scrutinised eh? You influence the make up of the Commission by voting in the EU elections. The new Commission will have to be voted in by the democratically-elected Parliament, and can also be voted out by the Parliament. Certainly we should be more interested and we should scrutinise more, although probably not as much as we should scrutinise our own politicians who are ultimately responsible for the direction of our country. But the more scrutiny on politicians the better, as far as I'm concerned. A psuedo parliament in an anti democratic political organisation where decisions and policies are made in secret meetings and behind closed doors. Totally undemocratic but it has served its purpose in fooling you...and whilst we are " in " they are OUR OWN politicians, supposedly. I believe that history will expose it for what it is..... most ' countries' claim democracy ...its about as democratic as China or the old USSR.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jun 25, 2019 19:11:19 GMT
You influence the make up of the Commission by voting in the EU elections. The new Commission will have to be voted in by the democratically-elected Parliament, and can also be voted out by the Parliament. Certainly we should be more interested and we should scrutinise more, although probably not as much as we should scrutinise our own politicians who are ultimately responsible for the direction of our country. But the more scrutiny on politicians the better, as far as I'm concerned. A psuedo parliament in an anti democratic political organisation where decisions and policies are made in secret meetings and behind closed doors. Totally undemocratic but it has served its purpose in fooling you...and whilst we are " in " they are OUR OWN politicians, supposedly. I believe that history will expose it for what it is..... most ' countries' claim democracy ...its about as democratic as China or the old USSR. A pseudo-parliament that works in the same way as most parliaments. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it undemocratic.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 25, 2019 19:14:19 GMT
A psuedo parliament in an anti democratic political organisation where decisions and policies are made in secret meetings and behind closed doors. Totally undemocratic but it has served its purpose in fooling you...and whilst we are " in " they are OUR OWN politicians, supposedly. I believe that history will expose it for what it is..... most ' countries' claim democracy ...its about as democratic as China or the old USSR. A pseudo-parliament that works in the same way as most parliaments. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it undemocratic. It doesn't actually, for starters the MEPs don't instigate legislation. Its a nodding talking shop....and allegiance to the mission ( hence commission) of Ever Closer Union is sacrosanct.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jun 25, 2019 19:46:25 GMT
A pseudo-parliament that works in the same way as most parliaments. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it undemocratic. It doesn't actually, for starters the MEPs don't instigate legislation. Its a nodding talking shop....and allegiance to the mission ( hence commission) of Ever Closer Union is sacrosanct. So Nigel Farage has had an allegiance to Ever Closer Union for the past several years?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 25, 2019 20:12:04 GMT
It doesn't actually, for starters the MEPs don't instigate legislation. Its a nodding talking shop....and allegiance to the mission ( hence commission) of Ever Closer Union is sacrosanct. So Nigel Farage has had an allegiance to Ever Closer Union for the past several years? No he's had the impossible task of fighting it from within NOT to support it. He knows that it is impossible to effectively oppose anything.....the point in Farage's election is achieve "leave"... demonstrated by the recent EU elections and the rise of the BREXIT party.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jun 26, 2019 9:34:44 GMT
Good points, however I would add that we have lots of so called scrutiny (very superficial, I would call it) here and that doesn't make any difference , we still get governed by the same old Etonians representing only the same elite group of super rich. Look at the 2 we are faced with now. It's like a choice between syphilis and herpes. Power attracts only the criminal, the corrupt, the narcissists and the incurable egotists, history repeatedly tells this but we never seem to learn. Agree to some extent but the answer is not to make things worse, to give up the the hard fought vote, to allow our political masters more power, to be less accountable, more remote, top down , not even pretending to understand or put our interests first. Benn was right. Rach generation has to fight for democracy again. It's never won. Politicians are only leant power and must return it undiminished...its not theirs to give away. He was also correct about the 5 questions thst we should be able to ask of those we elect You mean the 5 questions that we never get to ask, or when we do are never answered. We are about to have to endure a PM whose main strategy is to avoid scrutiny (seems to be celebrated for doing so) and approaches any form of questioning with contempt. Exiting the EU for him will mean less scrutiny for himself and his own personal projects, that is all.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 26, 2019 9:38:04 GMT
Agree to some extent but the answer is not to make things worse, to give up the the hard fought vote, to allow our political masters more power, to be less accountable, more remote, top down , not even pretending to understand or put our interests first. Benn was right. Rach generation has to fight for democracy again. It's never won. Politicians are only leant power and must return it undiminished...its not theirs to give away. He was also correct about the 5 questions thst we should be able to ask of those we elect You mean the 5 questions that we never get to ask, or when we do are never answered. We are about to have to endure a PM whose main strategy is to avoid scrutiny (seems to be celebrated for doing so) and approaches any form of questioning with contempt. Exiting the EU for him will mean less scrutiny for himself and his own personal projects, that is all. The 5 questions are PRACTICAL process of a democratic system... although you could challenge your MEP on how you could influence the fishing policy of the EU ....and as regards your comment about less scrutiny.. I think that many of us have been inculcated into forgetting what it means to be a " country"....and can no longer envisage the UK genuinely being an independent one.... although Australia have managed it somehow.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jun 26, 2019 10:17:33 GMT
You mean the 5 questions that we never get to ask, or when we do are never answered. We are about to have to endure a PM whose main strategy is to avoid scrutiny (seems to be celebrated for doing so) and approaches any form of questioning with contempt. Exiting the EU for him will mean less scrutiny for himself and his own personal projects, that is all. The 5 questions are PRACTICAL process of a democratic system... although you could challenge your MEP on how you could influence the fishing policy of the EU ....and as regards your comment about less scrutiny.. I think that many of us have been inculcated into forgetting what it means to be a " country"....and can no longer envisage the UK genuinely being an independent one.... although Australia have managed it somehow. but the fundamental question for me is what difference does it make being an 'independent' country, when decision making is essentially controlled by an elite group anyway. I.e we are about to get another Etonian as a PM who lives in a completely different world to the vast majority of everyone else with a set of total contrasting interests. This notion of independence is just a fantasy, some kind of intellectual exercise which doesn't bear any resemblance to reality. When did this Independence (which I am yet to hear a fully explained definition of precisely what that is ) ever exist? Its like thinking that you have a say in society because you are allowed to ask a question on Question Time (which is never answered btw). If we are looking to get some kind of liberation through leaving the EU its going to be a bit of a shock when all the US corporate interests roll in unopposed to take over like a bulldozer. But of course the US is top of the class when it comes to dressing up any kind of bondage as freedom.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jun 26, 2019 10:34:12 GMT
The 5 questions are PRACTICAL process of a democratic system... although you could challenge your MEP on how you could influence the fishing policy of the EU ....and as regards your comment about less scrutiny.. I think that many of us have been inculcated into forgetting what it means to be a " country"....and can no longer envisage the UK genuinely being an independent one.... although Australia have managed it somehow. but the fundamental question for me is what difference does it make being an 'independent' country, when decision making is essentially controlled by an elite group anyway. I.e we are about to get another Etonian as a PM who lives in a completely different world to the vast majority of everyone else with a set of total contrasting interests. This notion of independence is just a fantasy, some kind of intellectual exercise which doesn't bear any resemblance to reality. When did this Independence (which I am yet to hear a fully explained definition of precisely what that is ) ever exist? Its like thinking that you have a say in society because you are allowed to ask a question on Question Time (which is never answered btw). If we are looking to get some kind of liberation through leaving the EU its going to be a bit of a shock when all the US corporate interests roll in unopposed to take over like a bulldozer. But of course the US is top of the class when it comes to dressing up any kind of bondage as freedom. Because the fundamentals of the democratic system is one person one vote. The vote had been fought for and won for centuries. And changes can be made by belief , conviction and involvement. I was ( very) involved in changing the law on the disclosure of convictions for under 18s in DBS checks...it took nesrly 10 years but can be done. The reforming 1944 Atlee government changed things. People do and can change things. I agree and have mentioned on here many times about the power of multinationals ....but you either " leave it to them/ others" to make decisions or you try to do something about it. Benn was right when he said that each generation has to fight for democracy. Often changes are made when people realise that something important has or could affect them....eg Sarah's law, the campaign for justice for the Hillsborough victims....or recently Natasha's law. Leaving the EU is one such moment when Politicians of calibre could have made a real difference....after 49 years of ever closer union ( ie... giving up sovereignty) Its impossible to change the EU's direction of travel.... because it exists for political and economic union... that's its purpose.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 1, 2019 5:46:16 GMT
Six top European jobs are up for grabs. Negotiations suspended whilst conversations go on behind closed doors and in corridors. Some national rivalry. ..,.... ..... French President Emmanuel Macron is ignoring the results of the European election by trying to make a back-room deal with other EU leaders over who should become the next president of the European Commission. It's a serious mistake. EU leaders could fritter away this newfound, but delicate, interest in the EU if they make the decision on who will become the future head of the European Commission, the most powerful office in the EU, in back-room deals. Visibly pleased, French President Emmanuel Macron stated at the end of last Friday's EU summit that the process ought to be restarted www.spiegel.de/international/europe/it-s-wrong-to-horse-trade-over-next-eu-commission-president-a-1274867.html
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 1, 2019 10:42:43 GMT
There seems to be very little interest in these most senior positions in the EU. This is the very expensive powerful organisation to which some people want to belong. Are we not sure that the interest is simply " belonging" to something that is bigger than ourselves that by its very name and remoteness means that we MUST belong. Leave the decision-making to " them", they know best.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 2, 2019 20:47:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 3, 2019 7:15:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 3, 2019 7:17:35 GMT
|
|