I believe that anyone who believes the EU is some sort of Gold Standard is exactly as deluded as many people's reasons for voting in favour of the Blank Cheque given as Brexit.
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation 2. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany 3. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments. 4. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections 5. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us" 6. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
I have never thought that the EU is beyond reproach. I believe that we benefitted in many ways from our membership. We have lost out in many ways since leaving. I suppose that your view of any politician will be down to your opinion. When I mentioned Farage, and Reform, I was thinking more in terms of their vote share, rather than the number of seats they are likely to gain. You could argue that this is not reflected in the number of seats purely because of our electoral system. If you go back to 2015, I think the stats were The Tories got 30,000 votes per seat they won, yet UKIP got nearly 4 million votes per seat. Many of the EU members have proportional representation.
I just thought we were better in than out.
We may be better in than out. Only time will tell. It is certainly true that, economically, we are better off at the very least in the short to medium term The point I was making about Farage is that PR is not the cure-all people would have you believe. UKIP got 1 seat per 4 million voters. Reform may repeat that this time. Whereas UKIP became the largest UK Party in an EU election with just 5 million votes
There are lots of different types of PR. And they all have their own advantages. And disadvantages.
Everyone in favour quotes Germany. And everyone against quotes Italy. 2 countries that, regardless of PR, have differing track records on political stability
To put that in perspective. In 2014. Ukip got 24 seats with a 27% vote share. Labour got 20 with 25% of the vote The Tories got 19 with 24% of the vote. This was based on a 35% turnout, and 15.8 million votes cast.
In 2015 in the uk general election. The Tories had the most seats, 331, with a 37% share of the vote, and a 66.2% turnout, so around 31 million votes cast.
On the 2015 General Election The Conservatives got just over 11 million votes. Just over double the votes cast for UKIP in the 2019 Euro election. Where they did rather better than the 2014 one. With 29 seats for UKIP (for their 30.9% vote share), 16 Lib Dems, 10 Labour, 7 Greens, and the Tories came 5th with 4 seats. For their 1.5 million votes.
Also important to remember that, in terms of seats, not comparing like with like. 650 MPs. Only 73 UK seats in Europe. Perspective needs numbers for context.
Just want to pick up on 1 point you have made several times.
You refer to the fact that older people (the majority of which voted for Brexit) are dying out, to be replaced by younger people. This is extremely misleading.
The simple fact is that people tend to become more Right Wing with age. Not me, not you-but the majority of older people do.
The middle aged of 25 years ago become the old today. And tend to adopt more Right Wing positions.
Always have. Always will. It is not a one time thing.
I believe that anyone who believes the EU is some sort of Gold Standard is exactly as deluded as many people's reasons for voting in favour of the Blank Cheque given as Brexit.
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation
Really?
3. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany
Some people might say that 1 member 1 vote is democracy.
6. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments.
Are you saying that the MEPs dont vote on legislation, and propose amendments? I have included some examples of earth shattering Private Members Bills below.
2019–21 parliamentary session Type Title of act Presented by Party Constituency Ballot Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 Chris Loder Conservative Dorset West Ballot Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021 Laura Trott Conservative Sevenoaks Ballot British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Act 2021 Bim Afolami Conservative Hitchin & Harpenden Ballot Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Act 2021 Mike Amesbury Labour Weaver Vale Ballot Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Act 2021 Mary Foy Labour City of Durham Ballot Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 Darren Jones Labour Bristol North West Ballot Prisons (Substance Testing) Act 2021 Dame Cheryl Gillan Conservative Chesham & Amersham
8. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections
They were PR.
10. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us"
Ok, but that will depend on your opinion. Maybe extremist was the wrong description. The Tory Party has many MPs that I cant stand, whose views I abhor, but accept that describing them as extremist may be going too far. Lets not even get into UKIP, Reform, or the Brexit Party, although I do appreciate that they have had little or no MPs, that may change in July.
12. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I dont think I have said that. Although I do feel that some posters on this thread have been confused as to what our government is responsible for, and what we should blame the EU for. I also think there has been a temptation to blame the EU for any unpopular legislation, whether they were responsible, or not. As well as not giving them any credit for any popular legislation that we have benefitted from
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
I dont have an opinion.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
I suppose the last 14 years is proof of that not being the case.
As I have said a number of times my opinion is restricted to the belief that we are better in than out. I have little knowledge of the inner workings of the EU. I feel that they are unfairly criticised on a regular basis. Particularly during the Brexit negotiations. I am not sure that you are being fair in the above comments.
To be clear I do not sit back and view the workings of the EU, with stunned admiration. There seems to be plenty of voting, amending, and electing, going on. I am sure there has to be a balance between elected MEPs, and member states being represented in the more important roles. You have commented a number of times regarding the lack of democracy in selecting a number of our recent PMs. The most influential MPs in our system are the Cabinet, they are selected by the PM, who may have been put in position by around 300 people, or a smallish number of Tory Party members. I think the below seems quite reasonable, and am not sure how it could be improved. https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/how-eu-policy-decided_en https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20231212STO15844/how-are-the-members-of-the-european-commission-elected-video
It is difficult to compare the EU, with our politics. The EU consists of 27 member countries. Only 4 make up the UK, yet our politicians have proved they can make such a horrendous mess of things, in the long term.
I'm sure you genuinely believe you have a balanced opinion. We all do.
You have posted thousands of posts in favour of the EU. And about 4 against it.
Just to mention a couple of things in your latest EU love-in:-
No. 1 Member, 1 vote is not "democracy". Democracy comes from 2 Greek words meaning "people" and "rule". It is not "democracy" when, for example, the 3 million people of Wales have the same total votes as the 57 million of England. Or Malta is the same as Germany. Particularly important as the numbers of Eastern European Members rise.
You decry Private Members Bills. Without Private Members Bills we would still have the Death Penalty, Abortion and Homosexuality would still be Criminal Offences, Autism would not receive proper legal protection-think all those are irrelevant?
The EU is like everything else. Good bits. Bad bits. Together with hordes of people who can only see 1 of those 2 things.
The 1 thing that I would definitely like to see is a change in the way MPs jobs are comprised. It is strange that the minute an MP is promoted to the Cabinet he has both less time and less ability to devote to his constituents (due to having to abide by Cabinet Rules). It seems to me to be far better to have a larger Regional element (like in the old EU elections) to help sharing of the workload.
I'm sure you genuinely believe you have a balanced opinion. We all do.
I just believe that we are better in than out. Thats it.
You have posted thousands of posts in favour of the EU. And about 4 against it.
I honestly havent viewed it in that way. I think the original title was Brexit. I have posted articles, and opinions, on stuff that I have found that had anything to do with Brexit, and the consequences. I have changed the title regularly, in an attempt to generate more interest.
Just to mention a couple of things in your latest EU love-in:-
No. 1 Member, 1 vote is not "democracy". Democracy comes from 2 Greek words meaning "people" and "rule". It is not "democracy" when, for example, the 3 million people of Wales have the same total votes as the 57 million of England. Or Malta is the same as Germany. Particularly important as the numbers of Eastern European Members rise.
It wasnt a love in. I was merely addressing some of the points you made. Not sure you are comparing apples with apples. Germany elect 96 MEPs, and Malta 6.
You decry Private Members Bills. Without Private Members Bills we would still have the Death Penalty, Abortion and Homosexuality would still be Criminal Offences, Autism would not receive proper legal protection-think all those are irrelevant?
You surely dont believe that no government would have introduced legislation regarding any of the above?
The EU is like everything else. Good bits. Bad bits. Together with hordes of people who can only see 1 of those 2 things.
Although I dont know enough to argue about this. I am not going to repeat myself again.
The 1 thing that I would definitely like to see is a change in the way MPs jobs are comprised. It is strange that the minute an MP is promoted to the Cabinet he has both less time and less ability to devote to his constituents (due to having to abide by Cabinet Rules). It seems to me to be far better to have a larger Regional element (like in the old EU elections) to help sharing of the workload.
I wouldnt disagree. I just think that if we analysed how things in this country are run we would be very disappointed. Our politics is just one of them. I think we just ignore stuff to avoid driving ourselves mad.
Private Members Bills are far from perfect. But they provide a vital outlet whereby individual MPs can bring forward stuff that is beneficial to the Country. As opposed to a Party.
Let's take 2 examples.
1. The Death Penalty. Abolishing it was not a "vote winner" in 1965. The Majority of voters wanted to keep the Death Penalty in 1965. It was another 20+ years before that majority turned. No Party would have abolished it due to self-interest for at least another 10 years. 2. Legalisation of homosexuality. It was 1967 when this became legal in England and Wales. Whereas it was not until the 1980s when Scotland and Northern Ireland caught up
It is an important safety valve for our Democracy.
And before you dismiss it as unimportant, remember this. It is the likeliest way we will see the start of a closer relationship with the EU in the next 20 years...
Private Members Bills are far from perfect. But they provide a vital outlet whereby individual MPs can bring forward stuff that is beneficial to the Country. As opposed to a Party.
Let's take 2 examples.
1. The Death Penalty. Abolishing it was not a "vote winner" in 1965. The Majority of voters wanted to keep the Death Penalty in 1965. It was another 20+ years before that majority turned. No Party would have abolished it due to self-interest for at least another 10 years. 2. Legalisation of homosexuality. It was 1967 when this became legal in England and Wales. Whereas it was not until the 1980s when Scotland and Northern Ireland caught up
It is an important safety valve for our Democracy.
And before you dismiss it as unimportant, remember this. It is the likeliest way we will see the start of a closer relationship with the EU in the next 20 years...
I looked up the abolition of the Death Penalty, to see if I could understand it better. I failed. I am not going to create an argument for the sake of it, but as you have had to go back 60 years for your examples, do you think things have changed?
The bit that I dont understand is that a PMB still has to be voted through Parliament. You seem to be suggesting that the government would not be blamed for passing legislation that wasnt approved by the majority of the electorate, if it went through as a PMB. Thats the bit I dont understand. In the case of the above bill it initially went through as a suspension until 1970. This was amended in 1969. So I guess Harold Wilson would have got the blame anyway.
Just want to pick up on 1 point you have made several times.
You refer to the fact that older people (the majority of which voted for Brexit) are dying out, to be replaced by younger people. This is extremely misleading.
The simple fact is that people tend to become more Right Wing with age. Not me, not you-but the majority of older people do.
The middle aged of 25 years ago become the old today. And tend to adopt more Right Wing positions.
Always have. Always will. It is not a one time thing.
Your right about folks getting more right wing as they get older, when ah was young ah was a member of the Socialist party used to go to meetings and marches and the like, met a few people who were in it for themselves and to be honest didn't like them, they had mare faces than the toon clock. I always held a Union card and for the last 40 years or so voted for Labour, my wife says ah am becoming more right wing with age, ah don't see it that way, but she must be right as she's never wrong.
I believe that anyone who believes the EU is some sort of Gold Standard is exactly as deluded as many people's reasons for voting in favour of the Blank Cheque given as Brexit.
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation 2. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany 3. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments. 4. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections 5. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us" 6. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
I have never thought that the EU is beyond reproach. I believe that we benefitted in many ways from our membership. We have lost out in many ways since leaving. I suppose that your view of any politician will be down to your opinion. When I mentioned Farage, and Reform, I was thinking more in terms of their vote share, rather than the number of seats they are likely to gain. You could argue that this is not reflected in the number of seats purely because of our electoral system. If you go back to 2015, I think the stats were The Tories got 30,000 votes per seat they won, yet UKIP got nearly 4 million votes per seat. Many of the EU members have proportional representation.
I just thought we were better in than out.
We may be better in than out. Only time will tell. It is certainly true that, economically, we are better off at the very least in the short to medium term The point I was making about Farage is that PR is not the cure-all people would have you believe. UKIP got 1 seat per 4 million voters. Reform may repeat that this time. Whereas UKIP became the largest UK Party in an EU election with just 5 million votes
There are lots of different types of PR. And they all have their own advantages. And disadvantages.
Everyone in favour quotes Germany. And everyone against quotes Italy. 2 countries that, regardless of PR, have differing track records on political stability
To put that in perspective. In 2014. Ukip got 24 seats with a 27% vote share. Labour got 20 with 25% of the vote The Tories got 19 with 24% of the vote. This was based on a 35% turnout, and 15.8 million votes cast.
In 2015 in the uk general election. The Tories had the most seats, 331, with a 37% share of the vote, and a 66.2% turnout, so around 31 million votes cast.
On the 2015 General Election The Conservatives got just over 11 million votes. Just over double the votes cast for UKIP in the 2019 Euro election. Where they did rather better than the 2014 one. With 29 seats for UKIP (for their 30.9% vote share), 16 Lib Dems, 10 Labour, 7 Greens, and the Tories came 5th with 4 seats. For their 1.5 million votes.
Also important to remember that, in terms of seats, not comparing like with like. 650 MPs. Only 73 UK seats in Europe. Perspective needs numbers for context.
You said this. Whereas UKIP became the largest UK Party in an EU election with just 5 million votes
I thought that you were inferring that it was disproportionate. I dont mean to be petty, but in 2019 they were the Brexit Party, which is why I went to 2014, because that is when the were UKIP. The point I was trying to make was that it was a proportioate result. UkIP were the biggest party, but by a very small margin. The seats won by the 3 biggest parties were commensurate with their share of the vote, with around half the turnout of the general election.
Just want to pick up on 1 point you have made several times.
You refer to the fact that older people (the majority of which voted for Brexit) are dying out, to be replaced by younger people. This is extremely misleading.
The simple fact is that people tend to become more Right Wing with age. Not me, not you-but the majority of older people do.
The middle aged of 25 years ago become the old today. And tend to adopt more Right Wing positions.
Always have. Always will. It is not a one time thing.
This wasnt my point. I had read it in a couple of articles. The one below says that 61% of over 65s voted for Brexit. While 75% of 18-24 year old voted to remain. The BBC one is pretty much the same.
Just want to pick up on 1 point you have made several times.
You refer to the fact that older people (the majority of which voted for Brexit) are dying out, to be replaced by younger people. This is extremely misleading.
The simple fact is that people tend to become more Right Wing with age. Not me, not you-but the majority of older people do.
The middle aged of 25 years ago become the old today. And tend to adopt more Right Wing positions.
Always have. Always will. It is not a one time thing.
Your right about folks getting more right wing as they get older, when ah was young ah was a member of the Socialist party used to go to meetings and marches and the like, met a few people who were in it for themselves and to be honest didn't like them, they had mare faces than the toon clock. I always held a Union card and for the last 40 years or so voted for Labour, my wife says ah am becoming more right wing with age, ah don't see it that way, but she must be right as she's never wrong.
The quote I have seen many times is that, Everyone starts off as a Socialist when they own nothing, but as soon as they do they become a Tory.
Just want to pick up on 1 point you have made several times.
You refer to the fact that older people (the majority of which voted for Brexit) are dying out, to be replaced by younger people. This is extremely misleading.
The simple fact is that people tend to become more Right Wing with age. Not me, not you-but the majority of older people do.
The middle aged of 25 years ago become the old today. And tend to adopt more Right Wing positions.
Always have. Always will. It is not a one time thing.
Your right about folks getting more right wing as they get older, when ah was young ah was a member of the Socialist party used to go to meetings and marches and the like, met a few people who were in it for themselves and to be honest didn't like them, they had mare faces than the toon clock. I always held a Union card and for the last 40 years or so voted for Labour, my wife says ah am becoming more right wing with age, ah don't see it that way, but she must be right as she's never wrong.
The quote I have seen many times is that, Everyone starts off as a Socialist when they own nothing, but as soon as they do they become a Tory.
Ah must still be a socialist cause ah own **** all.
Just want to pick up on 1 point you have made several times.
You refer to the fact that older people (the majority of which voted for Brexit) are dying out, to be replaced by younger people. This is extremely misleading.
The simple fact is that people tend to become more Right Wing with age. Not me, not you-but the majority of older people do.
The middle aged of 25 years ago become the old today. And tend to adopt more Right Wing positions.
Always have. Always will. It is not a one time thing.
Your right about folks getting more right wing as they get older, when ah was young ah was a member of the Socialist party used to go to meetings and marches and the like, met a few people who were in it for themselves and to be honest didn't like them, they had mare faces than the toon clock. I always held a Union card and for the last 40 years or so voted for Labour, my wife says ah am becoming more right wing with age, ah don't see it that way, but she must be right as she's never wrong.
The quote I have seen many times is that, Everyone starts off as a Socialist when they own nothing, but as soon as they do they become a Tory.
Ah must still be a socialist cause ah own **** all.
I believe that anyone who believes the EU is some sort of Gold Standard is exactly as deluded as many people's reasons for voting in favour of the Blank Cheque given as Brexit.
The EU, just like everything else, has major flaws. Which some articles just want to gloss over. Just to give examples from your latest post:-
1. The 720 MEPs have no say in instigating legislation 2. The 27 EU Commissioners. 1 Member, 1 vote. Ludicrous. So-for example-the opinions of Malta and Cyprus carry the same weight as France and Germany 3. How many of our 650 MPs have any say in making legislation? 650-or 649 if you discount the Speaker. All have the right to instigate legislation. All have the right to propose, and vote on, amendments. 4. Saying your vote doesn't count is not relevant. This was just as true in EU elections 5. How many seats are filled in the UK by extremist politicians? Very few. Compare/contrast with UKIP managing to get a Majority with the campaign slogan "We are not going to turn up, so vote for us" 6. It is nonsense to suggest that the EU does not have a major influence on National Elections. One of the major drivers for the Far Right is attacking the EU-and that resonates with a significant minority in Member states
I don't believe the EU is inherently bad. Any more than I think it is a force for good.
Economic benefits? Undoubtedly Managing to provide better policies on a range of global issues better than this Govt? Undoubtedly Doesn't mean that we are not perfectly capable of looking after ourselves
I have never thought that the EU is beyond reproach. I believe that we benefitted in many ways from our membership. We have lost out in many ways since leaving. I suppose that your view of any politician will be down to your opinion. When I mentioned Farage, and Reform, I was thinking more in terms of their vote share, rather than the number of seats they are likely to gain. You could argue that this is not reflected in the number of seats purely because of our electoral system. If you go back to 2015, I think the stats were The Tories got 30,000 votes per seat they won, yet UKIP got nearly 4 million votes per seat. Many of the EU members have proportional representation.
I just thought we were better in than out.
We may be better in than out. Only time will tell. It is certainly true that, economically, we are better off at the very least in the short to medium term The point I was making about Farage is that PR is not the cure-all people would have you believe. UKIP got 1 seat per 4 million voters. Reform may repeat that this time. Whereas UKIP became the largest UK Party in an EU election with just 5 million votes
There are lots of different types of PR. And they all have their own advantages. And disadvantages.
Everyone in favour quotes Germany. And everyone against quotes Italy. 2 countries that, regardless of PR, have differing track records on political stability
To put that in perspective. In 2014. Ukip got 24 seats with a 27% vote share. Labour got 20 with 25% of the vote The Tories got 19 with 24% of the vote. This was based on a 35% turnout, and 15.8 million votes cast.
In 2015 in the uk general election. The Tories had the most seats, 331, with a 37% share of the vote, and a 66.2% turnout, so around 31 million votes cast.
On the 2015 General Election The Conservatives got just over 11 million votes. Just over double the votes cast for UKIP in the 2019 Euro election. Where they did rather better than the 2014 one. With 29 seats for UKIP (for their 30.9% vote share), 16 Lib Dems, 10 Labour, 7 Greens, and the Tories came 5th with 4 seats. For their 1.5 million votes.
Also important to remember that, in terms of seats, not comparing like with like. 650 MPs. Only 73 UK seats in Europe. Perspective needs numbers for context.
Almost double the votes, and close to double the turnout.
There it is in a nutshell. 720 M.E.P. who have no say in making legislation.
Unelected Commission who hold the power and make the legislation.
Unelected and unaccountable, except to their own paymasters, and yet people seem to be on board with that idea.
Strange then that in other parts of the world unelected people making all the rules are referred to as dictatorships or regimes, whilst all the time coming under pressure to allow democracy.
Ursula and Co can keep putting the telescope to the blind eye and saying I see no ships but nationalism is not going away any time soon. UK, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain and Poland all have a growing undercurrent of nationalism and the continual ignorance of the EU to this won't help.
Nationalism is not one of those things that if you ignore it, it goes away. On the contrary, if you ignore it, it grows and feeds and sustains itself.
The only question for the EU is will it find the reforms it needs to appeal to a broader church or will it continue to self serve, as the cracks widen, to the point where the entire edifice becomes dangerously unstable.
I wonder how, if after July 4th the winning party were not allowed to make legislation but had to defer to some unelected body, the British electorate would react.
I'm guessing, not well. Still if it was good enough whilst we were in the EU eh?
I still dont quite get the unelected bit. As far as the EU is concerned, MEPs are obviously elected, and form the European Parliament. Seats are allocated to each member country on a pro rata basis. The President of the European Commision is elected. Each member country nominates a candidate. Parliament votes on the candidates, the winner must get an absolute majority. Each member country puts forward one candidate for the other Commissioner jobs. Parliament checks that candidates are up to the task, in special hearings, before holding a final vote to approve or reject the Commission as a whole. MEPs vote on any changes in the Commission, and have the power to disolve it. Lastly, you have the European Council. The European Council is made up of the heads of state or government of all EU countries, the European Council President, and the European Commission President.
In comparison we have a PM that is often selected by around 300 people, or a small number of old doddery Tory Party members. The PM selects the Cabinet, a group which become the most influential MPS. Our legislation can be affected by coalition partners, recently by the Lib Dems in 2010, and the DUP in 2017. Also by groups of MPs, for instance, there is no doubt that the ERG influenced the Brexit negotiations. Or that the 1922 Committee regularly influences Tory governments. Select Committee members are appointed. We also have PMBs in our Parliament. @Essexphil stressed the importance of these, but had to go back 60 years to provide valid examples. And it is conjecture to estimate how long it would have taken for our government to implement either or both of the Bills. @Essexphil has suggested that the PMBs are an importantant safety net. I wont dispute that, but having looked through the PMBs below, the majority of the PMBs that have been passed more recently seem quite mundane, and the selection of them seems pretty much pot luck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_members'_bills_in_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom Although I do accept that the two examples that @Essexphil put forward were important. I dont think that there is any doubt that UK governments are sometimes influenced by groups of MPs, or by particular enthusiastic individual MPs.
I dont know if this is true of MEPs.
@Essexphil was arguing that the one nomination per member country was ludicrous. As the member countries are allocated seats on a pro rata basis, according to the size, or population of each member country, if the members of the Commission were chosen, and voted on by Parliament, then the larger countries would be able to carve it up between them, and the smaller countries would not be represented. You could argue that the allocation of seats in the European Parliament on a pro rata basis, gives the larger countries a bigger influence anyway, and that an alternative maybe described by some as undemocratic.
After saying all that, I am not, and never have argued that the EU are perfect, or that no improvements can be made. I am merely arguing that we are better in than out. We used to be influential members, and maybe could have influenced some changes from within. Maybe this would not have been possible. It is definitely not possible now. I am certain that we would gain more by treating them as friends, and allies, rather than being at loggerheads with them. The constant EU bashing bashings by some part of our press just seems pointless, as we are out.
Review and adoption Once the Commission has presented its proposal, both the Parliament and the Council review it and can propose amendments. Typically, the Parliament, the Council and the Commission then meet to see if they can agree on a complete set of amendments.
If the Commission does not agree with any amendments, the Council can only overrule the objection by unanimous decision. If the Commission considers that the amendments excessively change the proposal, it has the right to withdraw its proposal.
If the three institutions do not agree on a common final text, a second reading takes place.
During the second reading, the Parliament and the Council can propose further amendments. Parliament can also block the proposal if it cannot agree with the Council.
If the Parliament and the Council agree on the amendments, the proposal can be adopted. If they cannot agree, a conciliation committee is set up to try to find a solution. Both the Parliament and the Council can block the proposal during this final second reading stage.
A proposal is adopted into law when the Parliament and Council agree on a joint text, and it is published in the EU’s Official Journal.
You are clearly never going to understand the limited role of the European Parliament. Whose role is rather more like the House of Lords than the House of Commons. Their role is as a secondary review chamber-not to initiate matters,
The original EEC had very few Members. And was formed entirely by Western European nations of a similar mind. Whereas its Membership is now far wider. And what may suit a Germany, a France or a UK, is most certainly not the same as will suit a Hungary, a Romania, or a former Soviet Republic. 11 of the 27 are now Eastern European. Already as many as Western Europe-unless you include Scandinavia.
Goes back to the point I have made many times. The UK has far more to gain from being in an EEC than in a EU. Simply because we are on the edge of Europe. An Island nation. With very different priorities than rather a lot of Europe. Not better. Not worse. Just different.
Turning back to PR, there are a lot of different ones. Which give rise to interesting differences from what we are used to.
Let's take the Single Transferable Vote used in, for example, NI. It interests me that, instead of getting the Politician most people want in the field, you end up getting the Politician the least people don't want. Because every time the bottom candidate is excluded, their votes are reassigned to someone else.
You referred to the way our leaders are elected in GB. But recent changes have all been within 1 Party-the Conservatives. Who have a different system to others.
How does this work in practice? We have just the 1 example where it played out fully. The 2022 Leadership Election. Where it was necessary to be Top 2 to go to the Members. So-how did Truss do?
You are clearly never going to understand the limited role of the European Parliament. Whose role is rather more like the House of Lords than the House of Commons. Their role is as a secondary review chamber-not to initiate matters,
The original EEC had very few Members. And was formed entirely by Western European nations of a similar mind. Whereas its Membership is now far wider. And what may suit a Germany, a France or a UK, is most certainly not the same as will suit a Hungary, a Romania, or a former Soviet Republic. 11 of the 27 are now Eastern European. Already as many as Western Europe-unless you include Scandinavia.
Goes back to the point I have made many times. The UK has far more to gain from being in an EEC than in a EU. Simply because we are on the edge of Europe. An Island nation. With very different priorities than rather a lot of Europe. Not better. Not worse. Just different.
Turning back to PR, there are a lot of different ones. Which give rise to interesting differences from what we are used to.
Let's take the Single Transferable Vote used in, for example, NI. It interests me that, instead of getting the Politician most people want in the field, you end up getting the Politician the least people don't want. Because every time the bottom candidate is excluded, their votes are reassigned to someone else.
You referred to the way our leaders are elected in GB. But recent changes have all been within 1 Party-the Conservatives. Who have a different system to others.
How does this work in practice? We have just the 1 example where it played out fully. The 2022 Leadership Election. Where it was necessary to be Top 2 to go to the Members. So-how did Truss do?
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom
Also important to remember that, in terms of seats, not comparing like with like. 650 MPs. Only 73 UK seats in Europe. Perspective needs numbers for context.
You refer to the fact that older people (the majority of which voted for Brexit) are dying out, to be replaced by younger people. This is extremely misleading.
The simple fact is that people tend to become more Right Wing with age. Not me, not you-but the majority of older people do.
The middle aged of 25 years ago become the old today. And tend to adopt more Right Wing positions.
Always have. Always will. It is not a one time thing.
I have little knowledge of the inner workings of the EU.
I feel that they are unfairly criticised on a regular basis.
Particularly during the Brexit negotiations.
I am not sure that you are being fair in the above comments.
To be clear I do not sit back and view the workings of the EU, with stunned admiration.
There seems to be plenty of voting, amending, and electing, going on.
I am sure there has to be a balance between elected MEPs, and member states being represented in the more important roles.
You have commented a number of times regarding the lack of democracy in selecting a number of our recent PMs.
The most influential MPs in our system are the Cabinet, they are selected by the PM, who may have been put in position by around 300 people, or a smallish number of Tory Party members.
I think the below seems quite reasonable, and am not sure how it could be improved.
https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/how-eu-policy-decided_en
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20231212STO15844/how-are-the-members-of-the-european-commission-elected-video
It is difficult to compare the EU, with our politics.
The EU consists of 27 member countries.
Only 4 make up the UK, yet our politicians have proved they can make such a horrendous mess of things, in the long term.
WAIT, WHAT?
Did @HAYSIE just write this?
"I dont have an opinion."
I'm sure you genuinely believe you have a balanced opinion. We all do.
You have posted thousands of posts in favour of the EU. And about 4 against it.
Just to mention a couple of things in your latest EU love-in:-
No. 1 Member, 1 vote is not "democracy". Democracy comes from 2 Greek words meaning "people" and "rule". It is not "democracy" when, for example, the 3 million people of Wales have the same total votes as the 57 million of England. Or Malta is the same as Germany. Particularly important as the numbers of Eastern European Members rise.
You decry Private Members Bills. Without Private Members Bills we would still have the Death Penalty, Abortion and Homosexuality would still be Criminal Offences, Autism would not receive proper legal protection-think all those are irrelevant?
The EU is like everything else. Good bits. Bad bits. Together with hordes of people who can only see 1 of those 2 things.
The 1 thing that I would definitely like to see is a change in the way MPs jobs are comprised. It is strange that the minute an MP is promoted to the Cabinet he has both less time and less ability to devote to his constituents (due to having to abide by Cabinet Rules). It seems to me to be far better to have a larger Regional element (like in the old EU elections) to help sharing of the workload.
I just think that if we analysed how things in this country are run we would be very disappointed.
Our politics is just one of them.
I think we just ignore stuff to avoid driving ourselves mad.
Private Members Bills are far from perfect. But they provide a vital outlet whereby individual MPs can bring forward stuff that is beneficial to the Country. As opposed to a Party.
Let's take 2 examples.
1. The Death Penalty. Abolishing it was not a "vote winner" in 1965. The Majority of voters wanted to keep the Death Penalty in 1965. It was another 20+ years before that majority turned. No Party would have abolished it due to self-interest for at least another 10 years.
2. Legalisation of homosexuality. It was 1967 when this became legal in England and Wales. Whereas it was not until the 1980s when Scotland and Northern Ireland caught up
It is an important safety valve for our Democracy.
And before you dismiss it as unimportant, remember this. It is the likeliest way we will see the start of a closer relationship with the EU in the next 20 years...
I failed.
I am not going to create an argument for the sake of it, but as you have had to go back 60 years for your examples, do you think things have changed?
The bit that I dont understand is that a PMB still has to be voted through Parliament.
You seem to be suggesting that the government would not be blamed for passing legislation that wasnt approved by the majority of the electorate, if it went through as a PMB.
Thats the bit I dont understand.
In the case of the above bill it initially went through as a suspension until 1970.
This was amended in 1969.
So I guess Harold Wilson would have got the blame anyway.
I always held a Union card and for the last 40 years or so voted for Labour, my wife says ah am becoming more right wing with age, ah don't see it that way, but she must be right as she's never wrong.
Whereas UKIP became the largest UK Party in an EU election with just 5 million votes
I thought that you were inferring that it was disproportionate.
I dont mean to be petty, but in 2019 they were the Brexit Party, which is why I went to 2014, because that is when the were UKIP.
The point I was trying to make was that it was a proportioate result.
UkIP were the biggest party, but by a very small margin.
The seats won by the 3 biggest parties were commensurate with their share of the vote, with around half the turnout of the general election.
I had read it in a couple of articles.
The one below says that 61% of over 65s voted for Brexit.
While 75% of 18-24 year old voted to remain.
The BBC one is pretty much the same.
How Brexit vote broke down
https://www.politico.eu/article/graphics-how-the-uk-voted-eu-referendum-brexit-demographics-age-education-party-london-final-results/
EU referendum: The result in maps and charts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028
Everyone starts off as a Socialist when they own nothing, but as soon as they do they become a Tory.
As far as the EU is concerned, MEPs are obviously elected, and form the European Parliament.
Seats are allocated to each member country on a pro rata basis.
The President of the European Commision is elected.
Each member country nominates a candidate.
Parliament votes on the candidates, the winner must get an absolute majority.
Each member country puts forward one candidate for the other Commissioner jobs.
Parliament checks that candidates are up to the task, in special hearings, before holding a final vote to approve or reject the Commission as a whole.
MEPs vote on any changes in the Commission, and have the power to disolve it.
Lastly, you have the European Council.
The European Council is made up of the heads of state or government of all EU countries, the European Council President, and the European Commission President.
In comparison we have a PM that is often selected by around 300 people, or a small number of old doddery Tory Party members.
The PM selects the Cabinet, a group which become the most influential MPS.
Our legislation can be affected by coalition partners, recently by the Lib Dems in 2010, and the DUP in 2017.
Also by groups of MPs, for instance, there is no doubt that the ERG influenced the Brexit negotiations.
Or that the 1922 Committee regularly influences Tory governments.
Select Committee members are appointed.
We also have PMBs in our Parliament.
@Essexphil stressed the importance of these, but had to go back 60 years to provide valid examples.
And it is conjecture to estimate how long it would have taken for our government to implement either or both of the Bills.
@Essexphil has suggested that the PMBs are an importantant safety net.
I wont dispute that, but having looked through the PMBs below, the majority of the PMBs that have been passed more recently seem quite mundane, and the selection of them seems pretty much pot luck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_members'_bills_in_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom
Although I do accept that the two examples that @Essexphil put forward were important.
I dont think that there is any doubt that UK governments are sometimes influenced by groups of MPs, or by particular enthusiastic individual MPs.
I dont know if this is true of MEPs.
@Essexphil was arguing that the one nomination per member country was ludicrous.
As the member countries are allocated seats on a pro rata basis, according to the size, or population of each member country, if the members of the Commission were chosen, and voted on by Parliament, then the larger countries would be able to carve it up between them, and the smaller countries would not be represented.
You could argue that the allocation of seats in the European Parliament on a pro rata basis, gives the larger countries a bigger influence anyway, and that an alternative maybe described by some as undemocratic.
After saying all that, I am not, and never have argued that the EU are perfect, or that no improvements can be made.
I am merely arguing that we are better in than out.
We used to be influential members, and maybe could have influenced some changes from within.
Maybe this would not have been possible.
It is definitely not possible now.
I am certain that we would gain more by treating them as friends, and allies, rather than being at loggerheads with them.
The constant EU bashing bashings by some part of our press just seems pointless, as we are out.
Review and adoption
Once the Commission has presented its proposal, both the Parliament and the Council review it and can propose amendments. Typically, the Parliament, the Council and the Commission then meet to see if they can agree on a complete set of amendments.
If the Commission does not agree with any amendments, the Council can only overrule the objection by unanimous decision. If the Commission considers that the amendments excessively change the proposal, it has the right to withdraw its proposal.
If the three institutions do not agree on a common final text, a second reading takes place.
During the second reading, the Parliament and the Council can propose further amendments. Parliament can also block the proposal if it cannot agree with the Council.
If the Parliament and the Council agree on the amendments, the proposal can be adopted. If they cannot agree, a conciliation committee is set up to try to find a solution. Both the Parliament and the Council can block the proposal during this final second reading stage.
A proposal is adopted into law when the Parliament and Council agree on a joint text, and it is published in the EU’s Official Journal.
https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/law/how-eu-policy-decided_en
The original EEC had very few Members. And was formed entirely by Western European nations of a similar mind. Whereas its Membership is now far wider. And what may suit a Germany, a France or a UK, is most certainly not the same as will suit a Hungary, a Romania, or a former Soviet Republic. 11 of the 27 are now Eastern European. Already as many as Western Europe-unless you include Scandinavia.
Goes back to the point I have made many times. The UK has far more to gain from being in an EEC than in a EU. Simply because we are on the edge of Europe. An Island nation. With very different priorities than rather a lot of Europe. Not better. Not worse. Just different.
Turning back to PR, there are a lot of different ones. Which give rise to interesting differences from what we are used to.
Let's take the Single Transferable Vote used in, for example, NI. It interests me that, instead of getting the Politician most people want in the field, you end up getting the Politician the least people don't want. Because every time the bottom candidate is excluded, their votes are reassigned to someone else.
You referred to the way our leaders are elected in GB. But recent changes have all been within 1 Party-the Conservatives. Who have a different system to others.
How does this work in practice? We have just the 1 example where it played out fully. The 2022 Leadership Election. Where it was necessary to be Top 2 to go to the Members. So-how did Truss do?
1st ballot. 3rd. 50 of 357 MPs voted for her.
2nd ballot. 3rd.
3rd Ballot. 3rd.
4th Ballot. 3rd
5th Ballot. 2nd.
And Members chose her. To run the Country.
Not my idea of Democracy.