Daily Express Crusade Victory

[Lord Duckhunter]

The single biggest change regarding Europe in recent years was Maastricht, overseen by a then Conservative Govenrment.

 

Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon that followed were all amendments, but for me it was Maastricht and the establishment of the EU that was the major landmark (and if anything Brown should be commended for stopping us from entering the Euro, when many were pushing for it).

 

That's correct, to their shame the Tory party (with the support of all the other main parties) rammed through Maastricht and gave away vast amounts of our sovereignty. People like Ken Clarke, Chris Patten and Hestletine held the party to ransom, and John Major was not strong enough to sort them out. The ironic thing is that the people who were right about Europe and the Euro were portrayed as loons and right wing nutters and the ones who were wrong (as we now know) were "moderates".The British people are now coming round to this way of thinking, and any vote would end us with us leaving (hense the reason we wont get one)

 

Brown said all along that he was not against the Euro in principle, it was just the timing he oppossed. Had his economic tests been met, he would have signed (or attemptted to) us up. As sane people pointed out at the time ecomonic tests were no way to weigh up the pros and cons. The ecomony is cyclical and whilst joining the euro may be right one year (ie, the tests are all in favour) but wrong 10 years later. The only people who were right were the ones against it in principle. The principle being, you can not have a single currency covering several differant countries and governments.

Edited 4 October, 2011 by Lord Duckhunter

[ecuk268]

It would effectively be; Everyone established in politics vs. Nigel Farage and some Tory MP's + the Express and the Mail.

 

Once the CBI and the rest of the big companies who finance the Tories made their views known, very few Tory MPs would vote to leave.

[pap]

We want to be in Europe, not out of it and the EU brings us many benefits within our life. - http://www.whathaseuropedone.eu/

 

I genuinely think though, that if there is a referendum we would end up voting to stay in once the heavyweights get involved and start presenting the truth.

 

It would effectively be; Everyone established in politics vs. Nigel Farage and some Tory MP's + the Express and the Mail.

 

An interesting link there, Andy, and I while I would support a lot of the points on there, I think they're grasping when they have to mention cheaper phone calls.

 

Is political union a pre-requisite for all of them to have been achieved? I'm not so sure.

 

I also don't agree with the assessment that it is a left-vs-right thing. It comes down to having a say in how you are governed, and on the issue of Europe, we've had very little say.

 

We agreed to a common market. We didn't agree to political union, because we have never been asked.

[hypochondriac]

You can't have economic union without political union. As it is the political union I strongly object to, I can't see myself ever believing that the euro is a good thing for anyone.

[Lord Duckhunter]

We want to be in Europe, not out of it and the EU brings us many benefits within our life. - http://www.whathaseuropedone.eu/

 

I genuinely think though, that if there is a referendum we would end up voting to stay in once the heavyweights get involved and start presenting the truth.

 

It would effectively be; Everyone established in politics vs. Nigel Farage and some Tory MP's + the Express and the Mail.

 

At the moment members of both partys are governed and run by the whips and the party machines. Strip that away and their real thoughts will come through. The last campaign was free of party influence and members were allowed to campaign for either side. Once free of these ties a lot (particulary Tory) senior figures would campaign for an out vote.

 

We were lied to last time, and people who remember , wont get fooled again.

[um pahars]

Whilst we are on (or were on) the subject of just making things up to try and disparage something.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/04/theresa-may-clashes-judges-cat

 

 

 

I have to agree in that playing to the right wing xenophobic audience (and the Daily Mail) with lies like this does make you wonder about the calibre of debate there is to be had about serious subjects.

 

Andrew Neil took her to task over it, and she just squirmed, but I don't expect and apology or a retraction on the same sacale (a bit like the papers themselves who print shi1te all over the front pages and then put the retraction in a small paragraph on page 20).

 

I was always concerned about the ability, experience and qualifications of the Conservative Party, as although I thought it was time for a change, I was worried that being so long in opposition meant they just weren't cut out for governing the country.

 

Theresa May has displayed a desire to play to the crowd giving out misinformation on a very important subject, Lansley has made a total mess of NHS reforms, Hague, well I wouldn't let Hague be in charge of a train set let alone foreign policy, Gove has made cckoc up after cckoc up and is now trying to shoe horn a Victorian and/or Private Education system in to every school and Pickles is spending £250m on bin collections when we should be saving the money (but once again he's pandering to the Daily Mail).

 

Osborne is about the only one who is making a bit of sense at the moment and even he is on dodgy ground if we go in to a double dip!!!! Not impressed.

[um pahars]

An interesting link there, Andy, and I while I would support a lot of the points on there, I think they're grasping when they have to mention cheaper phone calls.

 

Is political union a pre-requisite for all of them to have been achieved? I'm not so sure.

 

I also don't agree with the assessment that it is a left-vs-right thing. It comes down to having a say in how you are governed, and on the issue of Europe, we've had very little say.

 

We agreed to a common market. We didn't agree to political union, because we have never been asked.

 

I wouldn't say Tony Benn was on the right wing of the political spectrum and he was most definitely a Euro Sceptic!!!!

[Saintandy666]

An interesting link there, Andy, and I while I would support a lot of the points on there, I think they're grasping when they have to mention cheaper phone calls.

 

Is political union a pre-requisite for all of them to have been achieved? I'm not so sure.

 

I also don't agree with the assessment that it is a left-vs-right thing. It comes down to having a say in how you are governed, and on the issue of Europe, we've had very little say.

 

We agreed to a common market. We didn't agree to political union, because we have never been asked.

 

Personally, I don't mind a political union, but I guess that is the debate. I believe that as a country we are in decline as the east rises and so a way to compete is to band together with our European friends. The EU economy as a whole is huge and there is the opportunity to be a superpower and really become a heavyweight if we do it properly. We should be at the centre of Europe, and the main problem we have had is that we have always been reluctant to do so which hands the driving seat to Germany and France.

 

The thing is though, our system is a trustee representative democracy. We agreed to be the EU when we elected MP's whose policy manifesto states they want to be in the EU. Referendums are not at the heart of our system, and I wish that would change, at least for major constitutional issues.

 

 

 

On a separate note... David Starkey, who is most aligned with the Tory hard-right called UKIP 'too silly for words'! - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15158057

[um pahars]

Brown said all along that he was not against the Euro in principle, it was just the timing he oppossed. Had his economic tests been met, he would have signed (or attemptted to) us up. As sane people pointed out at the time ecomonic tests were no way to weigh up the pros and cons. The ecomony is cyclical and whilst joining the euro may be right one year (ie, the tests are all in favour) but wrong 10 years later. The only people who were right were the ones against it in principle. The principle being, you can not have a single currency covering several differant countries and governments.

 

I think you're being somewhat harsh on Brown there as he did steer the UK away from joining the Euro on the ground that "it would not be in Britain's economic interest". The 5 tests were in some ways somewhat superfluouswith the main issue being as to whether the UK has a degree of economic harmonisation with the rest of Europe.

 

He was open to debate and discussion on the idea and I always felt his policy wasn't that he was following a particular political dogma, but instead he was constantly weighing up whether it would be in our interests, or not, to join. I would say he was constantly reassessing the situation and making a decision based on its merits, which IMHO is a very sensible way of making decisions (as opposed to be railroaded by special interests or political dogma).

[View From The Top]

I would vote to remain in Europe but not in its current guise.

 

The EU does have many good points but none of us under 50 have ever been asked as to whether we wanted to abdicate as much of our law making and sovereignty to unelected pencil pushers in Brussels.

[Saintandy666]

I would vote to remain in Europe but not in its current guise.

 

The EU does have many good points but none of us under 50 have ever been asked as to whether we wanted to abdicate as much of our law making and sovereignty to unelected pencil pushers in Brussels.

 

This is what I don't like. The EU is not some crazy unelected board of people who aren't involved in the members at all. We are PART of the EU and contribute to its rulings and what not.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I would vote to remain in Europe but not in its current guise.

 

The EU does have many good points but none of us under 50 have ever been asked as to whether we wanted to abdicate as much of our law making and sovereignty to unelected pencil pushers in Brussels.

 

Nobody has, the vote was whether to remain in a common market.

[dune]

I am in favour a trading block, but I am totally against political union (including economic/monetary union).

[pedg]

I would vote to remain in Europe but not in its current guise.

 

The EU does have many good points but none of us under 50 have ever been asked as to whether we wanted to abdicate as much of our law making and sovereignty to unelected pencil pushers in Brussels.

 

European laws have to go through the European parliament and the European Council. The UK is represented on the council and you hopefully voted for a member of the european parliament. so the idea that some unelected pencil pusher in brussels produces a law and it automatically enforced is wrong. It has to pass both the council and the parliament before its passed.

 

on top of which as I understand it (wife's sister does this stuff) what happens is that it is then down to the individual countries to write the laws based on the european directives and often the government will add more stuff to these laws that was in the original directive. This gives them a way of adding the bits they want and is it is complained about they blame the original directive.

Edited 4 October, 2011 by pedg

[Saintandy666]

Nobody has, the vote was whether to remain in a common market.

 

If you voted for Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green Party and so on and so forth then you have indirectly voted to stay in the EU. That is how our democracy works. It's not pretty, but that's the system. We elect governments on manifestos.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The Lib/Dem manifesto had a committment to an in/out vote, so how is that a vote to stay in the EU?

[Saintandy666]

The Lib/Dem manifesto had a committment to an in/out vote, so how is that a vote to stay in the EU?

 

Ok.. so you have voted for a referendum in order to clear the air and confirm that we want to stay in the EU to shut all the sceptics up. That is the Liberal Democrat view!

[Benj]

European laws have to go through the European parliament and the European Council. The UK is represented on the council and you hopefully voted for a member of the european parliament. so the idea that some unelected pencil pusher in brussels produces a law and it automatically enforced is wrong. It has to pass both the council and the parliament before its passed.

 

on top of which as I understand it (wife's sister does this stuff) what happens is that it is then down to the individual countries to write the laws based on the european directives and often the government will add more stuff to these laws that was in the original directive. This gives them a way of adding the bits they want and is it is complained about they blame the original directive.

The EU Parliament can't propose legislation though. Only the Council can do that, and the Council is not directly elected nor in any way able to be held accountable to the general population.

[pedg]

The EU Parliament can't propose legislation though. Only the Council can do that, and the Council is not directly elected nor in any way able to be held accountable to the general population.

Are the civil servants who write the UK laws directly elected? The point is unless it passed the elected European parliament it will not become law so it does not matter who proposed the law does it?

[Saintandy666]

The EU Parliament can't propose legislation though. Only the Council can do that, and the Council is not directly elected nor in any way able to be held accountable to the general population.

 

Yes, but the council isn't made up of a bunch of random people. It comprises of the heads of states/their representatives of the 27 members of the EU! They are the ones who have control.

[View From The Top]

The EU Parliament can't propose legislation though. Only the Council can do that, and the Council is not directly elected nor in any way able to be held accountable to the general population

.

 

Exactly. The Council is appointed not elected.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Are referendums ever truly representative? Of course not.

[Saintandy666]

Exactly. The Council is appointed not elected.

 

No, the council is elected because the 27 members are democracies.

[Wes Tender]

If you voted for Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green Party and so on and so forth then you have indirectly voted to stay in the EU. That is how our democracy works. It's not pretty, but that's the system. We elect governments on manifestos.

 

I didn't indirectly vote to stay in Europe at all. I voted for a basket of policies including those on Education, Health Service, Law and Order, Immigration, Foreign Policy, etc. Any politician who claims a mandate for any particular policy issue based on that is a charlatan. There are some policies that are too important to be hidden within a manifesto and declared as having a mandate for them. I don't recall you taking this line when there was the referendum on the voting system as the price to be paid for Lib Dem support to the Tories. The constitutional aspects of EU membership are at least as important a subject for a referendum as the voting system and other such momentous pieces of legislation would be the abolition of the House of Lords or the Monarchy. Would you accept that these items could be buried in a manifesto and that if that party was elected, they have a mandate to pass that legislation?

[Saintandy666]

I didn't indirectly vote to stay in Europe at all. I voted for a basket of policies including those on Education, Health Service, Law and Order, Immigration, Foreign Policy, etc. Any politician who claims a mandate for any particular policy issue based on that is a charlatan. There are some policies that are too important to be hidden within a manifesto and declared as having a mandate for them. I don't recall you taking this line when there was the referendum on the voting system as the price to be paid for Lib Dem support to the Tories. The constitutional aspects of EU membership are at least as important a subject for a referendum as the voting system and other such momentous pieces of legislation would be the abolition of the House of Lords or the Monarchy. Would you accept that these items could be buried in a manifesto and that if that party was elected, they have a mandate to pass that legislation?

 

I agree with you that major constitutional changes should be subject to referendum.

 

However, we don't live in a direct democracy. We live in a representative democracy, and a trustree one at that. What you personally think isn't important. You voted for a party who had a manifesto and by voting for them you indirectly give them legitimacy to govern and to implement their manifesto in full(as per the doctrine of the mandate). And if that bunch of policies includes staying in the EU, then you indirectly sanction that. Vote UKIP if you want out of the EU.

[solentstars]

Ah. EFTA that counts broke Iceland and the Principality of Liechtenstein as half their membership. We would definitely be a big fish is a small pond then!

true its like us leaving the premier league to play in the conference league but i expect the anti eu nutters are just has mad as the pro-euro types. i expect most of us just get on with our lives.

[solentstars]

I think you're being somewhat harsh on Brown there as he did steer the UK away from joining the Euro on the ground that "it would not be in Britain's economic interest". The 5 tests were in some ways somewhat superfluouswith the main issue being as to whether the UK has a degree of economic harmonisation with the rest of Europe.

 

He was open to debate and discussion on the idea and I always felt his policy wasn't that he was following a particular political dogma, but instead he was constantly weighing up whether it would be in our interests, or not, to join. I would say he was constantly reassessing the situation and making a decision based on its merits, which IMHO is a very sensible way of making decisions (as opposed to be railroaded by special interests or political dogma).

good post

[pap]

We want to be in Europe, not out of it and the EU brings us many benefits within our life. - http://www.whathaseuropedone.eu/

 

I genuinely think though, that if there is a referendum we would end up voting to stay in once the heavyweights get involved and start presenting the truth.

 

It would effectively be; Everyone established in politics vs. Nigel Farage and some Tory MP's + the Express and the Mail.

 

I wouldn't say Tony Benn was on the right wing of the political spectrum and he was most definitely a Euro Sceptic!!!!

 

I know, but people do love to frame people that have questions about Europe as right wingers.

[Saintandy666]

I know, but people do love to frame people that have questions about Europe as right wingers.

 

The old left wing are anti-EU. But it's switched now.

[pap]

I agree with you that major constitutional changes should be subject to referendum.

 

However, we don't live in a direct democracy. We live in a representative democracy, and a trustree one at that. What you personally think isn't important. You voted for a party who had a manifesto and by voting for them you indirectly give them legitimacy to govern and to implement their manifesto in full(as per the doctrine of the mandate). And if that bunch of policies includes staying in the EU, then you indirectly sanction that. Vote UKIP if you want out of the EU.

 

Isn't the putting the horse before the cart though, Andy?

 

Political constructs like the European Union and trustee democracy are not inviolable. They're mechanisms for achieving certain tasks. If a mechanism is broken, we assess where it is going wrong, repair it or consider alternatives.

 

Our ancestors weren't satisfied with "that's the way it is" - and nor should we be.

 

The European Union has made some commendable achievements in its brief history, but it has also made some bad decisions and creates social problems. Ultimately, it's a question of whether it is worth the trouble. The problem is that no-one has ever bothered asking us, and I believe that the reason for that is that they already know the answer they would get.

[View From The Top]

No, the council is elected because the 27 members are democracies.

 

Rubbish. They are political appointees. Not one has been elected to power by any voter in the EU.

[pap]

true its like us leaving the premier league to play in the conference league but i expect the anti eu nutters are just has mad as the pro-euro types. i expect most of us just get on with our lives.

 

Three of the EFTA members are also members of the European Economic Area, which participates in the single market without the financial burden of being in the EU. Not a perfect solution, but it frees up areas such as agriculture or fishing.

 

You're quite right to point out the comparatively lowly stature of those states, though chaps. I don't necessarily believe we need to be part of anything so large. We're a financial and cultural centre, and I believe that we've got the ingenuity to do things for ourselves and the clout to negotiate favourable terms with the EU if we decided to leave.

 

Good thread so far, btw. Was interested to hear pedg's explanation of how EU laws trickle down into local legal systems and was also good to get an insight into the mechanics of the voting process.

[pedg]

Rubbish. They are political appointees. Not one has been elected to power by any voter in the EU.

 

You could say that Cameron in a political appointee as it is the elected MP's who decide who is prime minister not the voters.

[Wes Tender]

I agree with you that major constitutional changes should be subject to referendum.

 

However, we don't live in a direct democracy. We live in a representative democracy, and a trustree one at that. What you personally think isn't important. You voted for a party who had a manifesto and by voting for them you indirectly give them legitimacy to govern and to implement their manifesto in full(as per the doctrine of the mandate). And if that bunch of policies includes staying in the EU, then you indirectly sanction that. Vote UKIP if you want out of the EU.

 

Naive in the extreme to believe that in a general election especially, one should vote for UKIP if one believes that we should be out of Europe. As they do not have a realistic chance of forming a government, the likelihood is that if enough others voted that way, then the party that I wouldn't wish to be in government, that doesn't have the policies in its manifesto that I support, would win. But then you admit that major constitutional changes such as those on Europe should be put to the British public in a referendum, so your suggestion that I vote UKIP is spurious. I should be able to vote for my preferred party's manifesto on all their other policies and also vote for what I want in the referendum.

[Saintandy666]

Naive in the extreme to believe that in a general election especially, one should vote for UKIP if one believes that we should be out of Europe. As they do not have a realistic chance of forming a government, the likelihood is that if enough others voted that way, then the party that I wouldn't wish to be in government, that doesn't have the policies in its manifesto that I support, would win. But then you admit that major constitutional changes such as those on Europe should be put to the British public in a referendum, so your suggestion that I vote UKIP is spurious. I should be able to vote for my preferred party's manifesto on all their other policies and also vote for what I want in the referendum.

 

Then maybe you should start to support a better electoral system, like PR.

[Saintandy666]

Rubbish. They are political appointees. Not one has been elected to power by any voter in the EU.

 

No, the 27 members of the council(plus the president of the Eu Rumpeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey and Barroso) who make up the council are representatives of the governments of the 27 states. The official members of the 27 heads of state for Christs sake!!!! The people with the power in the EU is us, not some randomers.

[Saintandy666]

Isn't the putting the horse before the cart though, Andy?

 

Political constructs like the European Union and trustee democracy are not inviolable. They're mechanisms for achieving certain tasks. If a mechanism is broken, we assess where it is going wrong, repair it or consider alternatives.

 

Our ancestors weren't satisfied with "that's the way it is" - and nor should we be.

 

The European Union has made some commendable achievements in its brief history, but it has also made some bad decisions and creates social problems. Ultimately, it's a question of whether it is worth the trouble. The problem is that no-one has ever bothered asking us, and I believe that the reason for that is that they already know the answer they would get.

 

 

I'm enjoying the sensible discussion I must say. I'm sorry for any typos in this post/previous posts(just in from the pub!)

 

What I would say in reply is that really this all depends on what you think of EU decisions. Of course it isn't going to have 100% decisions you find convenient or agree with, so we must look at the principles... and I must say its principles are broadly right and correct in line with general human rights and I want that protection.

 

And I agree with you, there probably should be a referendum(as my supported party suggested at the election), at least to shut everyone up when we vote yes

 

Sorry if this reply isn't up to any decent standard.

[Wes Tender]

Then maybe you should start to support a better electoral system, like PR.

 

A bit ironic when you supported that and the electorate didn't want it. I'm all for more referenda myself as being the path to more democratic government. Where governments of both the major parties have refused to allow the public to have their say on this issue ever since the major sea change that altered the entire basis of our involvement with Europe, it is long overdue to be resolved. The whole sorry episode could be laid to rest once and for all.

[badgerx16]

You could say that Cameron in a political appointee as it is the elected MP's who decide who is prime minister not the voters.

I think the constitutional position is that the Sovereign, after being advised by the Privy Council, selects who will be requested to attempt to form a Government. Generally this will be the leader of a party with an overall majority, but as we had at the last election, there can be a delay after the plebiscite until it becomes clear who might be in a position to attempt to form a majority coalition. It is entirely possible that a minority Government might be requested. MPs do not make this decision.

[View From The Top]

No, the 27 members of the council(plus the president of the Eu Rumpeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey and Barroso) who make up the council are representatives of the governments of the 27 states. The official members of the 27 heads of state for Christs sake!!!! The people with the power in the EU is us, not some randomers.

 

Apponited and not elected.

 

What part of that do you not understand?

[pedg]

I think the constitutional position is that the Sovereign, after being advised by the Privy Council, selects who will be requested to attempt to form a Government. Generally this will be the leader of a party with an overall majority, but as we had at the last election, there can be a delay after the plebiscite until it becomes clear who might be in a position to attempt to form a majority coalition. It is entirely possible that a minority Government might be requested. MPs do not make this decision.

 

The soverign stuff is just rubber stamping so that bogus in this context. The fact is the leader of the conservative party who is currently the prime minister is elected via a combination of MP's and conservative members. In that respect I would say that if you think the members of the european council are not democratically elected then the situation with the PM is even worse as it relies in part on conservative members who have no mandate from the general public.

[badgerx16]

The soverign stuff is just rubber stamping so that bogus in this context. The fact is the leader of the conservative party who is currently the prime minister is elected via a combination of MP's and conservative members. In that respect I would say that if you think the members of the european council are not democratically elected then the situation with the PM is even worse as it relies in part on conservative members who have no mandate from the general public.

Most of what happens in Westminster and Strasbourg/Brussels bears only a passing resemblance to democracy. The last General election returned a Government that was not on the polling cards, and the subsequent policy portfolio is a compromise between 2 manifestos that in parts were complete opposites. Almost all Government activity subsequent to being placed in office is effectively unaccountable - we elect them to make decisions on our behalf, ( bailing out the banks, invading Afghanistan, 'protecting the civilians' in Libya ), and very little of what they do has ever previously made it into electoral manifestos.

[pedg]

Most of what happens in Westminster and Strasbourg/Brussels bears only a passing resemblance to democracy. The last General election returned a Government that was not on the polling cards, and the subsequent policy portfolio is a compromise between 2 manifestos that in parts were complete opposites. Almost all Government activity subsequent to being placed in office is effectively unaccountable - we elect them to make decisions on our behalf, ( bailing out the banks, invading Afghanistan, 'protecting the civilians' in Libya ), and very little of what they do has ever previously made it into electoral manifestos.

 

I know. I was just trying to make the point that if people think the european council are appointed not elected that the same logic applies to the PM. Both are appointed by the people we elect (except the unelected conservative members in the case of the PM). The main difference is that the council appointments are effectively one level higher up.

Edited 5 October, 2011 by pedg

[Lord Duckhunter]

Is the House of Lords "elected", as most of the peers are chosen by elected parties?

[Saintandy666]

A bit ironic when you supported that and the electorate didn't want it. I'm all for more referenda myself as being the path to more democratic government. Where governments of both the major parties have refused to allow the public to have their say on this issue ever since the major sea change that altered the entire basis of our involvement with Europe, it is long overdue to be resolved. The whole sorry episode could be laid to rest once and for all.

AV is not PR. it's not even close. The Tories know that, hence why they allowed a referendum on it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

AV is not PR. it's not even close. The Tories know that, hence why they allowed a referendum on it.

 

It was part of the coalition agreement and therefore agreed by the Lib/Dems in return for their support. If PR meant so much to them they should have had the balls to demend one in return for their support.It is them you should be having your digs at, not the Torys.

[Saintandy666]

It was part of the coalition agreement and therefore agreed by the Lib/Dems in return for their support. If PR meant so much to them they should have had the balls to demend one in return for their support.It is them you should be having your digs at, not the Torys.

 

I'm not digging at the Torys. I'm just pointing out your erroneous suggestion that AV is PR. The Conservatives never would have allowed a PR Referendum because they know they would have lost. This is a major disadvantage to only having Referendums every so often. The government of the time only sanctions them when generally they think the result will go their way.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Looking back through this thread, Pedg has given me a great idea to save money in these times of austerity.

 

Let's just vote for our local council, then the councillor's elected could appoint our MP's & MEP's. It would save millions on General election and European election costs,and would still be democratic because the councillor's were elected by us in the first place.

[pedg]

Looking back through this thread, Pedg has given me a great idea to save money in these times of austerity.

 

Let's just vote for our local council, then the councillor's elected could appoint our MP's & MEP's. It would save millions on General election and European election costs,and would still be democratic because the councillor's were elected by us in the first place.

 

Too late I am afraid. Earlier your said

 

let's do away with General elections and just let clever people like you elect our leaders.

 

and I accepted so we have now saved even more money by just putting me in charge...... serf..

[Lord Duckhunter]

The government of the time only sanctions them when generally they think the result will go their way.

 

This is why we'll never get a vote on Europe. Plain and simple, nothing to do with principles, just politics. The establishment have deemed we're best off in Europe and are scared the peasant's will upset the apple cart.Just like public opinion on hanging changed over the years, they're hoping that they can ride out this storm and that future generations will come to see the European project as a wonderful thing.Personally, I think opinion is travelling the other way, and if they wanted to maintan or place in the EU, should have held a vote 10 years ago and killed it for another 20 years(as the Torys have done with PR)