|
Post by fretslider on Feb 5, 2010 20:37:39 GMT
scrutinized? i see. something along the lines of the fbi scrutinizing the activites of al capone. cool i also don't recall an EU WIDE campaign and election of any ministers. the eu is NOT like the u.s. where each state elects representatives to congress, and a NATIONWIDE vote for president. what official of the eu did you directly vote for? My vote at the General Election was taken into account when the current UK Government was formed, which then sends its ministers to negotiate at the EU. Really, so you live in a marginal constituency, then. My vote doesn't count and never will under FPTP. Funny, the UK government got into power on 22% of the vote, that can't be right, can it?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 5, 2010 20:45:46 GMT
My vote at the General Election was taken into account when the current UK Government was formed, which then sends its ministers to negotiate at the EU. Really, so you live in a marginal constituency, then. My vote doesn't count and never will under FPTP. Funny, the UK government got into power on 22% of the vote, that can't be right, can it? All the more reason why we need proportional representation. Whether it's Labour or Conservatives the wishes of ordinary people get ignored completely. I live in a marginal constituency and I still haven't made up my mind who to vote for. Mind you, on the last two elections I didn't make up my mind till the actual day! I'm the archetypal floating/swing voter to be honest! The only consistent vote I cast is for UKIP in the Euro elections. General, local, it varies like mad. When I lived in Tooting I voted Conservative at the local elections but I voted Labour in 1997 General Election, I think it's good not to be tied to a single party. I've had people from Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and UKIP all trying to persuade me to join or even stand for them as a candidate and I turn them ALL down.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 5, 2010 20:51:11 GMT
Really, so you live in a marginal constituency, then. My vote doesn't count and never will under FPTP. Funny, the UK government got into power on 22% of the vote, that can't be right, can it? When I lived in Tooting I voted Conservative at the local elections but I voted Labour in 1997 General Election, Tooting is sagging under the number of Asian immigrants who will always vote for Labour. I vote English Democrat, its pointless, but I feel I have a duty to vote, nonetheless. There should be a requirement for an MP to have received > 50% of the vote. That doesn't happen under FPTP
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 5, 2010 20:53:58 GMT
Fret, I share your view of the shortcomings of the FPTP system. For our Scottish Parliament and our Scottish local council elections, of course, we don't use it.
But the shortcomings of the FPTP system do not make the UK some kind of 3rd world dicatorship. No matter how flawed our democratic system is, I would not go so far as to say that the UK did not belong in the family of democratic nations.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 5, 2010 20:55:51 GMT
As for the EU it has to be a federal entity, similar to the US. The American states hate the feds so don't expect the EU states to be any different. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 5, 2010 21:07:30 GMT
Fret, I share your view of the shortcomings of the FPTP system. For our Scottish Parliament and our Scottish local council elections, of course, we don't use it. But the shortcomings of the FPTP system do not make the UK some kind of 3rd world dicatorship. No matter how flawed our democratic system is, I would not go so far as to say that the UK did not belong in the family of democratic nations. I beg to differ, Riot. Its an elected dictatorship, and the parties take turns. Parliament has no teeth, the executive does pretty much as it pleases.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 5, 2010 23:52:55 GMT
For what it's worth, I'd like to see a single currency throughout the world. OK riotgirl, let's suppose the single currency is the US Dollar. Obama will be pleased. He can now run the printing presses night and day without worrying about the US Dollar being devalued against other currencies. There are no other currencies. Oh happy days!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 6, 2010 12:52:10 GMT
that would indeed be tragic, but would not bother you, since you labor under the delusion that it is one world rather than 195 totally separate and distinct nations In what way is being a distinct nation compromised by not having a distinct currency? I'm Scottish and always have been, and my national identity has been in no way reduced by the fact that Scotland does not have a distinct currency. Every day millions - billions? - of pounds are made by people speculating on currency fluctuations. These leeches do not make anything. They do not provide a service. It's an industry we could go without - it does nothing to improve the lives of the vast majority of people, but a few fat cats get even richer. What are the objections to a single international currency? i certainly agree that no one has any right profiting from trading in money. however, this evil is not due to having a number of currencies, but from the government's failure to regulate and control those who deal in it. at any rate, the dollar is the universal trading currency, and that is certainly as close to a single international currency as we want to get
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2010 13:20:46 GMT
[ I share Winston Churchill's vision for a European political structure.? But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe,but not of it. We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed." - - Winston Churchill. good ole winnie..could always hit the nail on the head
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 6, 2010 13:22:27 GMT
scrutinized? i see. something along the lines of the fbi scrutinizing the activites of al capone. cool i also don't recall an EU WIDE campaign and election of any ministers. the eu is NOT like the u.s. where each state elects representatives to congress, and a NATIONWIDE vote for president. what official of the eu did you directly vote for? My vote at the European Parliamentary elections was taken into account when the MEP for this are was elected. My vote at the General Election was taken into account when the current UK Government was formed, which then sends its ministers to negotiate at the EU. Undoubtedly the unelected EU bureaucracy has too much power; democrats have been calling for reform for decades to plug that democratic deficit. The EU is far from perfect. But to say there is no democratic element to it at all is facile. exactly. what you have with the eu is what we have with the electoral college here, which as dumby proved in 2000, will go against the will of the people. the difference though, is that we only allow that to happen with the president, not with those who make the law. our presidential election is advisory only, and no elector is legally obligated to vote as he pledged. neither are your so called representatives
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2010 13:22:40 GMT
Appointment of 'ghost' MEPs will require ratification by all 27 member states
European Voice reports that the European Parliament has not yet issued an opinion on how to select the 18 additional 'ghost' MEPs introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. MEPs on the Constitutional Affairs Committee will choose an MEP to draft an opinion on 8 February. The increase in the number of MEPs can only be made by convening an inter-governmental conference of all 27 EU governments, as it entails changing the Lisbon Treaty. But MEPs are threatening to call a new European Convention, a forum that could open up other areas of the Treaty for negotiation, if France goes ahead with its plan to appoint its two new MEPs from the National Assembly. UK Liberal MEP Andrew Duff has warned that such a move fails to respect the principle that MEPs are directly elected from lists for the Parliament, rather than being appointed by governments.
UK Liberal MEP Andrew Duff has warned that such a move fails to respect the principle that MEPs are directly elected from lists for the Parliament, rather than being appointed by governments.
MEPs vote to give themselves more cash;
Tim King: The EP has more money than it knows what to do with
The European Parliament's budgets committee voted yesterday to increase MEPs' monthly allowances for assistants by €1,500 and to hire 150 extra staff which they claim are needed to help them deal with the new powers they have gained with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The move will cost European taxpayers an additional €13.3 million, and increase the Parliament's budget to €1.6 billion this year. The committee could not agree on where to make compensatory savings in other areas of the Parliament's spending. The increase was opposed only by MEPs from the far-left European United Left (EUL) group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group and the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group. Miguel Portas, a Portuguese EUL MEP, is quoted saying that increasing the allowance by €1,500 is "absurd".
In a comment piece, the Editor of the European Voice, Tim King, argues, "For 40 years, a near-secret agreement has governed how the three main institutions of the European Union divide up administrative spending...
how very demorcratic....chuff chuff...gravey train leaving form brussels central..all aboard
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2010 13:24:15 GMT
58 think-tanks to receive €6.7 million in EU subsidies
The European Commission will this year pay €6.7 million in subsidies to 58 think-tanks and NGOs which have "an openly pro-integration position", reports EUobserver. The top 10 recipients include the European Movement International, €430,000 and Friends of Europe, €192,000. Only one recipient of funding is critical of the EU institutions - Statewatch, which gets 39% of its budget from the Commission.
Think-tanks including the European Policy Centre, the Centre for European Policy Studies (Ceps) and Notre Europe, who claim to have objectivity all receive EU funding. Notre Europe's Funding Officer Jennifer Hoff is quoted saying, "We are really trying to diversify our funding because we do get criticised for this."
Open Europe's Pieter Cleppe is quoted arguing: "They [the EU] are setting up their own committees claiming that these are independent think tanks when, in fact, they are cheerleaders for the EU. They do not question the EU to the extent they would if they were not being funded by it. That's the whole point of the grants."
lol the stasi and kgb..pravda have nothing to learn from the european commisars
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 6, 2010 13:25:09 GMT
Elections for MEPs are more democratic than for the Westminster Partiament, since they employ a from of PR rather than FPTP. That's how we got a BNP MEP. (More's the pity.) of course, since you don't believe in freedom of speech, you wouldn't care about how democratic the country is. remember the FACT that the bnp has exactly the same right to speak as you do
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Feb 6, 2010 13:27:12 GMT
A common currency in a nation like America; run on federal lines, is not a problem. A common currency imposed on 25 distinctly diverse and disparate nations, with a centrally imposed bank rate, and financial rules and dictats imposed from the centre might just work when times are benign, and the false accounting of "problem" economies" in that grouping can be ignored. But, sooner or later (and later looks like coming sooner than later) the wheels will come off. A famous economist ( I forget who, for the moment) said that it is only when the tide goes out that one can see who is swimming in the nude; and he was right.
Greece could well be forced out of the Euro any time now. Euroland will resist this strongly, and may even agree to prop Greece up financially; although in so doing they will create a dangerous precedent, for Greece could well be followed by Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and quite a few of the eastern European latecomers to the party. The problems Greece faces need drastic cures. But she can neither use interest rate movement, nor can she devalue the currency---which she would certainly have done had she still had the Drachma, and the freedom to move.
The Euro permitted deficit of 3% is regularly being breached by most member states, and the debts being carried are in too many cases unsupportable. A common currency is a pipe dream in the present set up. It sounds wonderful. No exchange rate fluctuation; and all singing from the same hymn sheet. Except that it cannot work like that. Perhaps if they had established the United States of Europe FIRST; imposed common taxation, common welfare, and common everything else run from the centre, and THEN brought in the common currency, it would have made more sense. But this cart is well before the horse; and the horse is rather lame.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2010 13:29:18 GMT
Elections for MEPs are more democratic than for the Westminster Partiament, since they employ a from of PR rather than FPTP. That's how we got a BNP MEP. (More's the pity.) i take it your not in favour of demorcratic choice then ? and i recomend you read the article i posted on the proposed increase in mep.s......
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2010 13:31:31 GMT
and portugal is very wobbly...hey ho trouble ahead for the comisars....
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 6, 2010 13:48:43 GMT
i take it your not in favour of demorcratic choice then ? I am in favour - but I recognise the problems it brings, in that it can give a voice to very nasty fringe parties. Hopefullly, next time something like this looks like happening, the fringe parties on the left will put aside their differences and vote for the candidate most likely to beat the BNP. Voters in this coultry have been slow to understand the voting system in operation for electing MEPs. (And if you think that such tactical voting is 'undemocratic', you'll have to realise that it impossible to prevent, whatever the system you're applying.)
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2010 14:00:06 GMT
i take it your not in favour of demorcratic choice then ? I am in favour - but I recognise the problems it brings, in that it can give a voice to very nasty fringe parties. perhaps theres a better system first past the post isnt really fair in that the numbers of vote cast for mps of a party dont reflect in the party that ttakes power and proportional rep can as you say get some dubious representatives although...it is people choice how they wish to vote perhaps two votes are needed one for who/which party should govern ..a straight first past the post on number of votes cast and two for individual mp,s but it could wind up with a minority or hung government
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 6, 2010 14:05:33 GMT
i think people have a right to vote for who ever they wish.. far right,,,far left and every shade of green.... and lets be honest had the government governed the bnp would never have got a foot in the door a government is suposedly there to govern for the people on behalf of the people and follow the peoples wishes what ever those wishes may be...not to follow its own wretched agenda far too much party polliticking and agenda ridden...instead of adressing worries and concerns and far to much patronisation from those who think they know best
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 6, 2010 14:19:40 GMT
In the first place PR is fairer than the stupid FPTP nonsense we have now.
Secondly, if there wasn't such staggering disillusion with the mainstream parties fringe parties would get less votes.
Finally, it's surely better to let people like the BNP have a few seats in Parliament or the European Parliament because it does, simply by the fact that they ARE elected and DO have to start dealing with the affairs of constituents, make them more responsible and even responsive to other points of view.
In the 1970s and 1980s both the British Movement and even more extreme groups like the League of Saint George and Combat 88 involved in terrorist activity, including a number of bombings during which people died.
I'd rather have Nick Griffin in Brussels or Westminster than putting on his bovver boots and beating up or killing Asians.
Sometimes in life you just have to hold your nose and accept that democracy has a price - but that, with all its faults, it's one that's worth paying.
|
|