Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Riedquat

Members
  • Content Count

    19,488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Riedquat

  • Rank
    I live on HPC!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The whole point about the Lords was merely to demonstrate the level of democracy involved, it wasn't about the powers, so don't get sidetracked on that. Do the national powers need to directly answer to the electorate? If they do why don't the EU ones? What's so evident that it's completely different - it's very similar (and why is there an elected European Parliament?) I'm struggling to understand why you regard the difference as abstract.
  2. They don't set laws. Look at all the fuss made over Brexit about things like workers' rights. There's no EU policy there? In an election such issues may very well be key issues on which the election is fought.
  3. Yet a condition of being a member is accepting a level of authority higher than a nation state - the reason you give is one of the common Leave arguments - either those EU level powers need to answer directly to the electorate, or the level of powers needs to be reduced. The point about the Lords as it stands is that it is about as democratic as the EU Commission. Most of its members are appointed by the elected government now (it's not quite the same since there are still the bishops, some hereditary peers, and life peers are what they say, so it's only a rough comparison).
  4. Exactly - they're nominated by governments, not elected, and thus the European electorate has little impact on European policy. Not none of course, but there's little point in any standing in a European election on the platform of bringing in this policy or removing that one. Those other organisations are different cases, not relevant to this.
  5. That's a democracy, you can vote whoever you want in, and can vote them out too. I stand by my opinion that nothing can be labelled as democratic if its decision makers and rule makers are not elected. Being appointed by elected people doesn't alter that. EU policy is not decided by people who have reached their position due to being elected to it; there is no meaningful way to vote in a European election to influence EU policy (that it has to get through the European Parliament is too remote a step, it would be like saying an appointed Lords is democratic).
  6. Aw, I was looking forward to seeing him being physically dragged out screaming "Traitors! Mutiny! Mutiny!"
  7. If you don't want something you shouldn't vote for it, "I didn't mean it, can I try again?!" is a feeble excuse. I've no sympathy if you can't tell the difference between a referendum and a general election.
  8. In the case of the EU you have commissioners appointed by government who then swear to serve the EU, which is far removed from democratic accountability and even more removed from electorate policy-wise, they have little to fear from upsetting the public, whereas Trump's been voted out and will be leaving later today.
  9. What, that the system stopped Johnson doing that was a removal? Worrying about a potential dictatorship is like worrying that the EU was going to be a full-on USSR.
  10. And thus we have the checks and balances that stops it drifting too far from who the electorate elected.
  11. The government can't govern without Parliament though, and both live or die at the hands of the electorate. What the EU has got is more akin (note "more", not "exactly the same as") to the House of Lords being elected and the Commons being appointed by them. That would leave very little connection to the electorate. Can MEPs meaningfully stand on a platform of various EU policies, with a meaningful chance of shaping them?
  12. Thanks for the apology, your reaction would've been fair enough if I'd said Remoaner (I tend to find such insults juvenile even when they're coming from a side I mostly agree with; not that I can promise I've never got annoyed and used them myself). The "PrOjeCtFeAR" vs "FrEeDoM" nature of the arguments pretty much sums it up, another descent to pointless extremes. Sure, there are elements of both involved in a less extreme discussion but people do tend to pump their side up to a ridiculous degree and do the same to the other. I disagree with the sides thing in the case of the EU bec
  13. Thanks, so even if admissions do start dropping significantly we can probably expect an increase in the number of patients in hospital for getting on for two weeks - yes, that sounds like it's really stretching it thin, in the best case scenario.
  14. Well overall admissions are possibly peaking. Of course that alone isn't sufficient, as even if the rate of admission is decreasing it's still adding to the people already in hospital (any idea what the average hospital stay length for Covid-19 is?)
  15. So let's see what we've got here - it's one side or the other, black and white (so no room for the concept that they could both be good, both be crap, or anywhere in between), insults ("Brexidiots" and "moaning minnie with nothing to contribute"), and shifting of goalposts (there's no lack of democracy because it's not a totalitarian superstate - back to one extreme or the other there). If you swapped the House of Commons and House of Lords roles around, so the Commons did the job of the Lords and vice-versa, but we still voted for the Commons, would the UK have a serious lack of democrac
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.