Why can't politicians accept it when they lost?

[Riedquat]

32 minutes ago, msi said:

I'll apologise for my tone as I read your previous post of 'Remainer' for 'Remoaner'.  However I'm going to support my assertion that criticism of one side is completed with a support for alternate views (I don't think the world is flat and part of my critque for that is the evidence supporting the world is round).

 

Of course there is merit in both sides, only by bringing them together can you have constructive analysis. I thought you fired the first shot with Remoaner so I countered (and I apologise again for not reading properly).  The Remain argument was pushed back with PrOjeCtFeAR and the Brexit argument boiled down to 'FrEeDoM'.  My nature is eurosceptic, but looking at the loons arguing on Turkey's accession, Bendy bananas, Vaccumes, and spurious points made me despair and support the status-quo as no credible (IMO) plan was given.

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 because I never regarded it as having to decide between whether Brussels or Westminster is the better and going with them, the pros and cons of both are, IMO, two entirely separate debates. Look at it from another perspective - there's nothing inconsistent with supporting both your national government and the EU and thinking both are doing a good job if you think they are. Wanting big improvements in domestic government isn't an argument for being in or out of the EU any more than being generally satisfied with domestic government is.

[NobodyInParticular]

7 hours ago, Riedquat said:

The checks and balances of being part of something even less democratically accountable that can still set laws, where the only way to avoid them is to leave?

You mean the WTO? Because what you said isn't true of the EU. 

7 hours ago, Riedquat said:

That lack of accountability (and the level of power it's got anyway) are two of the more offputting aspects of the EU.

It has the power members give it. That's it. 

7 hours ago, Riedquat said:

That we've got useless politicians is beside the point - what checks and balances are there to stop the EU getting even more useless people running it

The accountable processes? If member states appoint useless people to the highest ranks of the Commission (lower echelons work differently) then they should stop doing so. 

7 hours ago, Riedquat said:

 

 

[NobodyInParticular]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

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 democracy? I don't think many people would accept it even if the members of the Lords were appointed by the Commons. For the EU to be democratic policy needs to be decided by MEPs. Or the level of its powers scaled back sufficiently that it doesn't matter.

Parliament doesn't govern in the UK, though, the government does. The parliament in the EU should have had more power, though, but the UK objected. 

[Riedquat]

40 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Parliament doesn't govern in the UK, though, the government does. The parliament in the EU should have had more power, though, but the UK objected. 

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?

[Bruce Banner]

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

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?

They tried that (prorogation) but the Supreme Court put a stop to it. I gather that BJ is now working on closing that path of contestation.

[ForGreatLager...]

23 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

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?

Yes. The distance and steps between a member of the electorate’s vote, and action by the EU, was a legitimate and known concern of many, I recall. 

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, Bruce Banner said:

They tried that (prorogation) but the Supreme Court put a stop to it. I gather that BJ is now working on closing that path of contestation.

And thus we have the checks and balances that stops it drifting too far from who the electorate elected.

[msi]

2 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Parliament doesn't govern in the UK, though, the government does. The parliament in the EU should have had more power, though, but the UK objected. 

We have a Parliamentary Democratic system, so Yes Parliament does - it is the supreme Governing authority such that even the head of state has the door to it slammed (ceremoniously) in her face.  The members of Parliament then decide who will form the Government (FPTP, Coalition, or GOAT). The same members of Parliament can decide to topple the current Government by sheer numbers when required.

 

The EU Parliament is a different beast, working in a different democratic process

[msi]

5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

And thus we have the checks and balances that stops it drifting too far from who the electorate elected.

I think it's a stretch calling it a 'check and balance'.  The Perogation was a sleight of hand to give BoJo respite instead of it's true purpose.  He was caught out by the case presented by Gina Miller (IIRC), so more 'caught trying it on'

[spyguy]

Re Brexit vote.

52% vote leave.

48% voted remain.

However turnout was 70%, meaning the actual vote was split roughly equally between In, Out, Dont care/didnt vote.

I'd guess everyone who wanted to remain voted.

However the active Renain vites were overwhelmed by Nos / Dont care, didnt vote.

I mention this as Trump achieved the 2nd highest of votes ever, only being beaten by Biden, a candidate so dull n doddering n totally inspiring he was just the anti-Trump ticket.

Trump discovered a huge number of voters that had been abandoned by both Dems n Reps.

Equally, Brexit was the first time a lot of people voted, mainly for Out.

Do these people remain politically active n voting?

 

 

[Bruce Banner]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

And thus we have the checks and balances that stops it drifting too far from who the electorate elected.

We have an opposite opinion here because I would regard it as removal of essential checks and balances and another step in the direction of potential dictatorship. 

[Riedquat]

10 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

We have an opposite opinion here because I would regard it as removal of essential checks and balances and another step in the direction of potential dictatorship. 

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.

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

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.

Let's agree to disagree.

[pig]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

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.

In the case of the EU you have 27 sovereign countries, in the case of Johnson or Trump you have deeply flawed individuals amorally determined to claw onto power.

I've got to admit I did not anticipate Trump would descend as far as he did. For all their surface common interests and similarities Johnson is a different person but I've got this nagging fear of being fooled twice.

[Riedquat]

13 minutes ago, pig said:

In the case of the EU you have 27 sovereign countries, in the case of Johnson or Trump you have deeply flawed individuals amorally determined to claw onto power.

I've got to admit I did not anticipate Trump would descend as far as he did. For all their surface common interests and similarities Johnson is a different person but I've got this nagging fear of being fooled twice.

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.

[scottbeard]

22 hours ago, Riedquat said:

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.

Again, I quite agree with you here.

Something that splits the country so evenly can't possibly have an "obvious" answer - if it did, it wouldn't split the country in this way.  Yet each side tends to suggest that only a complete moron would have voted the other way.

As I've said on other threads, I was about 70/30 in favour of Remaining.  Sometimes I feel like the only person who wasn't 100/0 or 0/100. 

There are also a lot of posts focussing on the financial impacts of being in and out, whereas in reality I think a lot of people (on both sides) were not necessarily swayed entirely or even mostly by financial arguments.  The clincher for me in voting Remain was National Security - I was concerned that in a war or natural disaster we could be very isolated if the EU all helped each other out and we were left in the cold.  Ironically, what happened during COVID (the first post-Brexit disaster) seems to be that the EU states all became nationalist again. 

[Pop321]

38 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Again, I quite agree with you here.

Something that splits the country so evenly can't possibly have an "obvious" answer - if it did, it wouldn't split the country in this way.  Yet each side tends to suggest that only a complete moron would have voted the other way.

As I've said on other threads, I was about 70/30 in favour of Remaining.  Sometimes I feel like the only person who wasn't 100/0 or 0/100. 

There are also a lot of posts focussing on the financial impacts of being in and out, whereas in reality I think a lot of people (on both sides) were not necessarily swayed entirely or even mostly by financial arguments.  The clincher for me in voting Remain was National Security - I was concerned that in a war or natural disaster we could be very isolated if the EU all helped each other out and we were left in the cold.  Ironically, what happened during COVID (the first post-Brexit disaster) seems to be that the EU states all became nationalist again. 

Sorry, this seems a bit balanced and considered. Which side are you saying were the freaking idiots?😆

More central ground understanding and less polarisation on many subjects (except house prices of course) would ge a good thing. Or at least a respectful appreciation of the ‘other sides’ views is a start. 

But that’s a bit boring....doesn’t sell media or help monetise the system.

[pig]

4 hours ago, Riedquat said:

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.

Er... yes so 27 sovereign countries discussing agreeing and deciding what they want vs a narcissist-fascist who incited the murderous invasion of the Capitol lol

Johnson has demagogue tendencies but he tends to leave the authoritarian stuff to others. There is more chance of him inflicting an authoritarian state than say alternatively our civil service inflicting a USSR state on us.

[dances with sheeple]

On 18/01/2021 at 23:18, Bruce Banner said:

I haven't got a bee in my bonnet about sovereignty, but we were a sovereign state before, during and after our membership of the EU.

I don't trust our populist government any further than I could throw it, so would prefer to have the checks and balances that go with being a member of the EU.

Unfortunately that isn`t how democracy works, more people took a different view and we are where we are.

[Riedquat]

21 minutes ago, pig said:

Er... yes so 27 sovereign countries discussing agreeing and deciding what they want vs a narcissist-fascist who incited the murderous invasion of the Capitol lol

Johnson has demagogue tendencies but he tends to leave the authoritarian stuff to others. There is more chance of him inflicting an authoritarian state than say alternatively our civil service inflicting a USSR state on us.

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).

[msi]

7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

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).

 

5 hours ago, Riedquat said:

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.

Far removed?  As you've stated EU commissioners are nominated by elected National Governments and ratified by directly elected MEPs.  That is more accountability than the World Bank, IMF, UN, and WTO.   

The comparison to the US system is flawed as the US system was built from the ground up to avoid an 'aristocracy' of power hanging around - I'll let you judge how effective that has been.  Also the US is a sovereign nation and not a supranational collective.

 

 

 

 

 

[pig]

10 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

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).

Merkel Macron and Johnson were all elected to their position - and my preference would be not to have anybody with a higher democratic mandate than the nation state. On the 'Lords reform' level of debate there is certainly nothing there to justify flouncing out.

[Riedquat]

6 minutes ago, msi said:

 

Far removed?  As you've stated EU commissioners are nominated by elected National Governments and ratified by directly elected MEPs.  That is more accountability than the World Bank, IMF, UN, and WTO.  

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.

[Riedquat]

8 minutes ago, pig said:

Merkel Macron and Johnson were all elected to their position - and my preference would be not to have anybody with a higher democratic mandate than the nation state. On the 'Lords reform' level of debate there is certainly nothing there to justify flouncing out.

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).

[msi]

4 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Those other organisations are different cases, not relevant to this.

They're not supranational organisations aligning many sovereign nations towards common goals?

 

5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

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.

Only full EU federalism would let the EU generate specific policies (then I would expect direct representation).  However the EU has been at pains to avoid that (remember the EU doesn't have a foreign policy minister, but a high representative for that reason).