Now that we finally have an election in UK

[B_crackoff]

What a wonderful thought! Give them whatever they want.

God no. We've spent 13 years with Scots primeministers & chancellors, & an entire body of Scots located in London ruling the UK.

NO MORE - they've ruined the country, though to read the opinions in the Herald, you'd think Brown,Blair, Darling et al were Southerners.

In shameful racist actions Scots unelected to English consituency dictate on purely English affairs, whereas the English have no such say in domestic Scot's affairs. Furthermore the Scot's Labour party votes one way on an issue in Scotland, the other in England.

Gordon Brown doesn't even represent his consituents on a domestic level.

The truly laughable thing about Scot's indepenence is that it would be rapidly followed by enjoinment to the EU!

After all that moaning of being ruled by a remote place, they'll be ruled by a place that doesn't even speak the language, & will take the oil too.

At least they'd be forced to take their share of the Scot's leadership incurred National Debt.

Whatever happens at the election, I pray that the English have the same rights as the Scots, Welsh & Irish, & be purely governed on domestic issues by the people they elected themselves, which means no Gordon Brown imposing tuition fees etc in England, whilst the Scots Labour party do not, & refuse to allow English students at Scottish insitutions to benefit.

Talk about an Educational Apartheid - it means that in the same country, being English will cost you more than £10,000 more to educate themselves.

Equality indeed.

 

[Jason]

Crackoff, I pretty much agree!

But paying the Scots for the support of Scottish MPs in order to fend off a financial crisis is a reasonably straightforward monetary bribe. The money would do some good in Scotland (and the loss of money some harm in England, Wales and NI), but this is so much better than the enormous financial mess we will be in without a Conservative administration after the election.

 

[dandelion]

In shameful racist actions Scots unelected to English consituency dictate on purely English affairs, whereas the English have no such say in domestic Scot's affairs.

this was the deal struck when the scots agreed to join the UK, that they would get a certain share of seats. Its a guarantee of a scots voice at westminster. If you unpick the number of scots MPs, then logically you unpick the whole deal.

The truly laughable thing about Scot's indepenence is that it would be rapidly followed by enjoinment to the EU! After all that moaning of being ruled by a remote place, they'll be ruled by a place that doesn't even speak the language, & will take the oil too.

Many people seem to think rule by the EU is a lot more comfortable than rule by westminster as it is now constituted, including a lot of the English. I too would like independence from the existing westminster parliament. That is a central theme of this election.

 

[Jason]

Many people seem to think rule by the EU is a lot more comfortable than rule by westminster as it is now constituted.

Many people think some foolish things. The EU expenses make those of our Westminster MPs look a model of fair play while the EU parliament has a democratic defecit so big that its democratic credentials are in doubt.

 

[dandelion]

Many people think some foolish things. The EU expenses make those of our Westminster MPs look a model of fair play while the EU parliament has a democratic defecit so big that its democratic credentials are in doubt.

Im sure I dont know what you mean. Decisions in the EU have always been decided by votes of the representatives of every member country. The house of commons chooses who becomes prime minister here, and he chooses who votes for us in Europe. The difference is that in the commons decisions are railroaded through by the party which commands a majority, whereas in Europe there is usually some disagreement, and dare I say it, minorities even have vetos to things they dont like.

As to expense, Im not sure the euro MPs ever pretended not to have ridiculous expenses, which was really the point.

 

[Jason]

Dandelion, you are trying to defend the indefensible. The European Commission is so corrupt that the auditors haven't signed off the books for years. The Lisbon Treaty was forced through without a referendum of the half billion people it affects (who would surely have opposed it) - and in those few cases where people could vote and voted against it they were threatened and told to vote again. The European parliament is peripatetic - not very pathetic, peripatetic. At enormous expense it regularly decamps from Brussels to Strasbourg for no reason that deserves to be given any credit. In CAP the EU has lost any moral sense. Its illusions of grandeur extended even to feeling that the EU is above economic basics and that it would uniquely be possible to create a single currency without a political union, inflicting chaos on all of us as it collapses.

Of course the EU is a natural home for Lib-Lab politics.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Bureaucracy is the bane of all political systems, as it can overwhelm even the best of intentions with obfuscation and literalism, cum OCD. Illusions of grandeur will only exacerbate the condition. We have an acronym, which comes in quite useful in these circumstances, tho' it's hardly original: KISS = Keep-It-Simple-Stupid. Would that more politicians could adhere to it.

 

[dandelion]

Dandelion, you are trying to defend the indefensible.

like defending a parliament where only two parties can ever win, where a small group of backroom fixers choose all the MPs, where no private citizen can make the tiniest difference to any policy, where people with lots of money buy the laws which suit them? Our own dear westminster?

The European Commission is so corrupt that the auditors haven't signed off the books for years.

as I last heard it explained most of everything the auditors are happy with, but there are a few issue. For example the Greek governments accounts...

The Lisbon Treaty was forced through without a referendum of the half billion people it affects (who would surely have opposed it

By NATIONAL governments. The EU itself did nothing, the member states agreed between themselves to do this. Im sure youll especially blame the labour party, but every european government rammed it through and I'm sure the conservatives would have too. Its only the powerlessness of being in opposition which gives them clean hands to complain. Heath joined the EU, Thatcher expanded it. Cameron joins the euro?

The European parliament is peripatetic

Yes, very silly. But originally it ws a typical compromise to spread some of the revenue you get from hosting all that bureaucracy, and made more sense when the whole thing was smaller. It should go, but reform moves on slowly. More important that the parliament has had increased powers.

In CAP the EU has lost any moral sense.

how so? The CAP in the UK was no more than a continuation of the british governments farm subsidy policy in a different form, and at heart was all about Europe being self sufficient in food. They overdid it, but not any more: people are starting to worry about food supply again.

Its illusions of grandeur extended even to feeling that the EU is above economic basics and that it would uniquely be possible to create a single currency without a political union, inflicting chaos on all of us as it collapses.

The EU has a political union, particularly in economic areas. Policy on dangerous dogs, drunken teenagers or barking parliaments is all down to the individual governments. It is a redistributive system which up until a few years ago was credited with raising the standards of living of the poorer members enormously. Nothing has really changed about that. It has just been overtaken by the larger, but hopefully temporary, global financial collapse.

Bankers screwed this up, not the EU. Looks as though the US intends to take Golman Sachs to the cleaners. The british banks will suddenly look a lot healthier if they get compensation, and I wonder if we can sue for the consequential loss of a trillion pounds?

 

[B_crackoff]

The EU IS NOT DEMOCRATIC.

ALL policies are made in closed chambers by unaccountable civil servants - the voting system in the Parliament is meaningless, as all policies have to be finagled by civil servants. The auditors haven't signed of the accounts for years, & sacked whistleblowers.

Then Blair went & threw in our rebate costing us £7Bn/year, while the French keep their staggering £20-30/Bn CAP entitlement!

We have an entirely different judicial system - case law not code.

This has led to the bastardy that is UK judges interpreting & creating laws, thus rendering the division of legislature & judiciary obsolete & tainted.

The EU makes 85% of all UK law, which is why MPs only sit 89 days in the Commons with no late sessions, where before they used to sit 114 with late sessions.

If you wanted to elect a government to change a specific law -you couldn't, unless they pulled out of the EU.

Gordon Brown goes on about the New World Order, Van Pomfrey explicitly stated that he saw climate change legislation as being the 1st step to a one world government.

We already know that Westminster is remote, what hope do we have when some Italian is responsible for putting through legislation that harms UK interest?

No vote, no yoke I say. The EU is more like the Politbureau - completely without transparency.

Pull out of the EU political union & we save £15Bn a year, stop all overseas aid £15Bn a year, pull out of Afghanistan £4Bn a year, raise retirement age to 69 £12Bn a year in 5 years.

We'll still have an almighty deficit, but it's a start when we're on the debtors jail doorstep.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Bankers screwed this up, not the EU. Looks as though the US intends to take Golman Sachs to the cleaners. The british banks will suddenly look a lot healthier if they get compensation, and I wonder if we can sue for the consequential loss of a trillion pounds?

Sorry to say it, because even though we have more than our fair share of a rogues gallery in the US, EU bankers were the worst of the lot. According to the IMF today, of the $2.3T in write downs from '07-'10, $1.3T came from the EU, which, for their purposes, despite apparent feelings to the contrary here, and many for good reason, includes the UK at $455B. Ouch!

RBS turns out to have been some of the dumbest guys in the room. Not only did they initially take half of the Goldman deal, which is under SEC scrutiny, but then they went out and acquired ABN Ambro, the counter party for the balance. They are currently nationalized and jointly owned by the UK, Netherlands, and Banco Santander. All told, of a $1.8B deal, they lost $1.6B.

Government budgets are funny things. IF the US spent as much on the military as Germany, the US would save between $600-800B, depending on who's figures you believe. That's about half our deficit this year. Fiscal balance can be achieved in the US, and UK, it all depends on national priorities.

 

[Jason]

This thread has vered onto Europe as many of us feel it is THE big issue for the UK. But none of our major parties (so far) seem to want to discuss it. Most concerning.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

This thread has vered onto Europe as many of us feel it is THE big issue for the UK. But none of our major parties (so far) seem to want to discuss it. Most concerning.

If the IMF deals with Argentina and Brazil are indication of the future, you can be thrilled that the UK has retained some of it's independence from the EU, and the euro. You still have the safety valve of Sterling.

What does Cameron say on the EU? I imagine Brown and Clegg are for it...

 

[Jason]

Brown and Clegg are pretty pro EU.

The Conservatives have for decades been divided over Europe. However the grass-roots are pretty Euro-sceptic. Cameron opposed Lisbon. My thought is that he will wait until next week then go really Euro-Sceptic.

 

[dandelion]

The EU IS NOT DEMOCRATIC.

well, I for one didnt mean to imply it is, if by that you mean run by an elected government. What I claim is that it is firmly under the control of the member states, who write the rules (the treaties) and appoint the commissioners. the EU does what it is told to do.

ALL policies are made in closed chambers by unaccountable civil servants - the voting system in the Parliament is meaningless, as all policies have to be finagled by civil servants. The auditors haven't signed of the accounts for years, & sacked whistleblowers.

The parliament was always a tacked on bit of window dressing, which in part explaine why MEPs are paid to sit around and do nothing. Nowadays it is begginning to grow just a few teeth and people ought to take it more seriously. But I refer you to the last answer, yes of course back room civil servants are busy preparing laws in accord with the instructions given them by the member states, just as civil servants do at westminster.

Then Blair went & threw in our rebate costing us £7Bn/year, while the French keep their staggering £20-30/Bn CAP entitlement!

You do realise that the reason the French get most from the CAP is that it is paid per acre, and they have more acres than anyone else. So in that sense it is completely fair. Also, the French are net contributors to the EU, so no one, least of all the British, are paying for their CAP receipts. Rather they are paying to us. The British rebate put us in a very good position, and in fact the way the numbers work, the French had to cough up most of the repayments to us, despite being themselves net contributors. Which maybe explains why they werent too happy about it either.

Blair agreed to give up some of the rebate on condition it would be spent only on non-agricultural subsidies to the new member states. The other existing states also had to pay more (or as the case may be, receive less). So blame Thatcher for agreeing to expansion (in fact pushing expansion), not Blair for agreeing to pay for what the conservatives had already committed us to.

We have an entirely different judicial system - case law not code.
This has led to the bastardy that is UK judges interpreting & creating laws, thus rendering the division of legislature & judiciary obsolete & tainted.

so what?

The EU makes 85% of all UK law, which is why MPs only sit 89 days in the Commons with no late sessions, where before they used to sit 114 with late sessions.

Only in the sense that there are endless detailed regulations to get through which make up a big proportion of all new legislation. All EU regualtions are in fact enacted by westminster. The EU does not make the laws which affect you and me and which most people argue about. If the EU did not exist, parliament would still spend most of its time on similar trivial regulations. Quite why westminster spends so little time trying to make laws well, well perhaps ask your MP. Maybe its because he just agrees to everything his party leader orders him to do instead of thinking for himself or for his constituents interests. We need more independant MPs.

If you wanted to elect a government to change a specific law -you couldn't, unless they pulled out of the EU.

not true. All three parties are currently arguing like mad over tax levels, spending levels, nhs v education, what size army, and so on. The Eu is primarily about the common market, which is to say having the same rules everywhere as they affect trade between individuals within the EU.

Gordon Brown goes on about the New World Order, Van Pomfrey explicitly stated that he saw climate change legislation as being the 1st step to a one world government.

Nice for him. Are you saying the EU is going to be so successful it becomes the world government?

We already know that Westminster is remote, what hope do we have when some Italian is responsible for putting through legislation that harms UK interest?

Which Italian was that then?

No vote, no yoke I say. The EU is more like the Politbureau - completely without transparency.

Then stop worrying about Europe and start worrying abut westminster, which dictates what the EU does on your behalf. Tell the government to hold elections for the people it sends to work on its behalf in the EU.

Pull out of the EU political union & we save £15Bn a year

Bet we dont. I dont know what the current figures are, but whenever I have checked them in the past they have always been overstated. Payment to the EU is what we put in minus what comes back. We too get lots from the CAP (for example).

 

[dandelion]

Brown and Clegg are pretty pro EU.
The Conservatives have for decades been divided over Europe. However the grass-roots are pretty Euro-sceptic. Cameron opposed Lisbon. My thought is that he will wait until next week then go really Euro-Sceptic.

This all has to do with britain being the most powerful country in the world and so being above silly alliances with other, minor countries. Some people still seem to believe this despite it now being 100 years out of date. I would imagine that the sort of people who are natural conservatives are amongst those most likely to still believe it.

Cameron's position on Lisbon was that he took no position until ratification was all but guaranteed, and then he pledged to have a vote on it if it had not been ratified by the time he became prime minister. Now there's opposition for you. The conservatives remain divided over europe and it is an interesting question whether if Cameron had been in government he would have done anything different to Brown. The nice thing about our system is that opposition parties can say whatever they like without it having any real repurcussions. Perhaps thast why they like it. On the other hand, the Scottish parliament forces parties to act as they really believe, because everyones vote counts in an assembly where no one party has a majority. If you vote against something, then you might win and stop it happening.

 

[slurper_la]

cleggmania takes hold

Nick Clegg: 'Cleggmania' Sweeps Britain, Liberal Democrats Surge In Polls

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Here as well...

Clegg as Bloomberg, Cont. - Ross Douthat Blog - NYTimes.com

He likens Clegg to Bloomberg, NYC Mayor (Clegg probably wishes he a fraction of Bloomberg's weath), and John Anderson, a liberal Repub from many moons ago, before such species became extinct.

 

[B_crackoff]

We have an entirely different judicial system - case law not code.
This has led to the bastardy that is UK judges interpreting & creating laws, thus rendering the division of legislature & judiciary obsolete & tainted.
.

so what?

The Uk has resisted codification - as that would get rid of most lawyers for a start!
However - the premise of the UK (uncodified) consitution & that of most democracies is that the separation means that you cannot make the law then judge people on it without being accountable to the population for the law.

Judges aren't elected. They have no accountability. The Legislature is, & it does. Therefore judges should not make up law as they go along. It used to be an incredibly rare & hotly debated occurrence.

On the flip side it would be the same as removing the judiciary & allowing govt. ministers to judge & sentence.

Which Italian was that then?

Reread - rhetorical - the point being you don't know anyone who has been responsible for a law. They are not accountable to the public.

The EU does not make the laws which affect you and me and which most people argue about.

The Human Right's Act, the succesor agreements to Copenhagen, trade laws including the idiotic VAT/IVA laws that allowed the £20+Bn VAT carousel fraud in the UK, the reintroduction of the Death Sentence The Lisbon Treaty “Legalizes” EU-Dictatorship with Death Penalty Euro-med - it's endless.

You do realise that the reason the French get most from the CAP is that it is paid per acre, and they have more acres than anyone else. So in that sense it is completely fair

Irrelevant - the CAP encourages uneconomic inefficient overproduction which is then dumped on 3rd world country markets.

Furthermore France benefits twice as much as anyone else, producing most of the 2.3 hectolitres of wine that annually remains unsold, but paid for by the EU citizens.

Stop worrying about Europe and start worrying abut westminster, which dictates what the EU does on your behalf. Tell the government to hold elections for the people it sends to work on its behalf in the EU.

Hardly, being 1 out of 27 it's in no position to dictate, that role is led to the Franco/German friendly coalition. 85% of laws are made by unseen unaccountable people, & the EU's express wish is to regionalise all countries & remove nationalism.

Odd that they want an EU nation then.

Pull out of the EU political union & we save £15Bn a year

Bet we dont. I dont know what the current figures are, but whenever I have checked them in the past they have always been overstated. Payment to the EU is what we put in minus what comes back. We too get lots from the CAP (for example).

We have to differ. Our CAP goods are normally economically efficient & essential, we'd get rid of paying for the duplication & triplication of administrative oversight, other countries, & we'd get our fishing waters back, & the North Sea stocks will replenish, instead of the 63% dumping of all fish caught.

Best of all, we could elect people directly responsible for making our laws, & throw them out.

None of the major parties will pull out of the EU. They are all pro European Federalism, though I agree Cameron may make some remarks in desperation!

Pull out of the EU political union & we save £15Bn a year
Pull out of the EU political union & we save £15Bn a year
Pull out of the EU political union & we save £15Bn a year

 

[dandelion]

We have an entirely different judicial system - case law not code.
This has led to the bastardy that is UK judges interpreting & creating laws, thus rendering the division of legislature & judiciary obsolete & tainted.

so what?

The Uk has resisted codification - as that would get rid of most lawyers for a start!
However - the premise of the UK (uncodified) consitution & that of most democracies is that the separation means that you cannot make the law then judge people on it without being accountable to the population for the law.

I dont follow. Judgements have always been made according to precedent. Which means where the law is unclear one judge makes an interpretation and then everyone does the same thing. Judges have always made law in this sense so it cannot be a premise of the system that judges do not make law, they always have.

On the flip side it would be the same as removing the judiciary & allowing govt. ministers to judge & sentence.

No it wouldnt. Judges are chosen from lawyers and once appointed are hard to remove. They are not ministers puppets. Ultimately parliament can overrule any judicial interpretation by writing a new, clearer, statute. In the meanwhile judges are functionaries part of whose job is to interpret when parliament has done a lousy job.

Which Italian was that then?

Reread - rhetorical - the point being you don't know anyone who has been responsible for a law. They are not accountable to the public.

My response was not rhetorical. You claim an arbitrary unknown person in some office made this law with reference to no one else. Im saying, show me a real example of this popular fallacy.

The EU does not make the laws which affect you and me and which most people argue about.

The Human Right's Act, the succesor agreements to Copenhagen, trade laws including the idiotic VAT/IVA laws that allowed the £20+Bn VAT carousel fraud in the UK, the reintroduction of the Death Sentence The Lisbon Treaty “Legalizes” EU-Dictatorship with Death Penalty Euro-med - it's endless.

So what has parliament done which really mattered which was mandated by the EU. Declared war on Iraq? Bailed out the banks? Banned foxhunting? introduced detention without trial? introduced charges for street parking? increased/cut NI rates? bought/not bought trident replacement missiles? introduced hour long queues at airports? the list is endless?

You do realise that the reason the French get most from the CAP is that it is paid per acre, and they have more acres than anyone else. So in that sense it is completely fair

Irrelevant - the CAP encourages uneconomic inefficient overproduction which is then dumped on 3rd world country markets.

Furthermore France benefits twice as much as anyone else, producing most of the 2.3 hectolitres of wine that annually remains unsold, but paid for by the EU citizens.

I thought i said, the french overall pay in to the Eu more than they take out. So you cannot say they are wasting anyones money except their own. The EU has reformed the system so that subsidies are no longer paid for particular crops. Last I heard, France was taking full advantage of transitional arrangements to delay bringing this in as long as possible. But the fact remains, its their own money which they are spending how they want.

Im afraid I am very skeptical that dumping really upsets foreign markets. We dont dump that much any more. Set aside (being paid to take land out of production) was abolished a couple of years ago because we had become net importers.

Stop worrying about Europe and start worrying abut westminster, which dictates what the EU does on your behalf. Tell the government to hold elections for the people it sends to work on its behalf in the EU.

Hardly, being 1 out of 27 it's in no position to dictate, that role is led to the Franco/German friendly coalition. 85% of laws are made by unseen unaccountable people, & the EU's express wish is to regionalise all countries & remove nationalism.

All important eu decisions are by unanimous agreement of the countries concened. The EU bureaucrats do exactly what they have been told to do, including told by us in situations where we could veto.

We have to differ. Our CAP goods are normally economically efficient & essential

tell me which arent and how we are paying for them.

we'd get rid of paying for the duplication & triplication of administrative oversight

Maybe, maybe not. we would still have to make our own rules and also administer them ourselves. Some saving perhaps, but pretty small beer.

we'd get our fishing waters back, & the North Sea stocks will replenish, instead of the 63% dumping of all fish caught.

you really reckon we would have made a better job of not giving in to pressure from fisherman to be allowed to catch just a little bit more? When parliamentary seats hang on it without being able to unfairly blame the EU?

Best of all, we could elect people directly responsible for making our laws, & throw them out.

Thats a joke, right? I have never ever had the person I wanted elected to parliament, and its not as if im a supporter of an extreme party such as the greens.

None of the major parties will pull out of the EU. They are all pro European Federalism, though I agree Cameron may make some remarks in desperation!

well of course they wont! The EU is an incredible bonus to every party because it gives them someone to blame when anything happens which voters do not like.

Pull out of the EU political union & we save £15Bn a year

Thats 4.5 billion euros in 2007, which is probably the last year of finalised numbers. Would need more time to find their latest figures. This is the net EU payments minus receipts. It takes no account of benefits the UK gets in terms of world influence or trading advantages. There are differences of opinion in how much theyre worth. 500 billion?

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

The above discussions allows of a belief that decisions that affect us are made democratically. They aren't and never have been. On the 6th we will be "given" our say and then told implicitly to shut up and fuck off. I met my MP today doorsteping: I thought it opportune to ask her face to face why she tried to claim expenses for her holiday and an antique desk - I was polite and articulate - but she turned to her left and I was "jumped" on by two Labour thugs. This is what passes for democracy in Great Britain today. The Blair/Thatcher legacy. You deserved it!