• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Democracy, Democracy, Democracy"

Collapse

  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    Actually the only thread I've started re Brexit in recent months, unlike you. Just the sort of meaningless reply I expect from you really.
    You could resist unignoring me could you?
    Proving even more what a complete sad sack you are.

    Oh and you also missed the point completely.

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    You're wasting your valuable time Xoggoth
    You are quite right. So fed up with seeing the meaningless one line abusive exchanges re Brexit on here, I thought I'd just post an opinion on what I see as the main issue and hope to get some real counter argument going. Fat chance with the usual suspects, I should have known better.

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    replied
    What is it telling the objective observer when Brexiters are spending so much energy yakking about Europe
    Actually the only thread I've started re Brexit in recent months, unlike you. Just the sort of meaningless reply I expect from you really.
    Last edited by xoggoth; 13 March 2017, 21:08.

    Leave a comment:


  • DimPrawn
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post
    Are you being "tongue in cheek" like you were yesterday?
    Or are you just a multiple loser?
    I'm planning on selling knitted bobble hats and home made jams to tourists paying in hard currencies, like Micronesian Rai Stones.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladyuk
    replied
    It is for me the most powerful argument against the EU as made by Tony Benn. The lack of democracy in the European Council is the main reason I am anti EU.

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
    You're wasting your valuable time Xoggoth. Here be the remnants of stupidity. Hopefully as soon as A50 is triggered, they will all fark orf to Germany or similar.

    Then we can all get on with making the predictions come true. That Britain will be the leading G7 economy for next 35 years.

    Are you being "tongue in cheek" like you were yesterday?
    Or are you just a multiple loser?

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    Most arguments for or against Brexit fail to address the major issue, the lack of democracy in the EU. Some say that the EU is democratic because we can vote for the European Parliament and our elected leaders have a say in the European Council but there is much more to meaningful democracy than putting a cross on a piece of paper.

    POINT 1 Voting in the EU is largely meaningless

    A national election is a two way consultation. We can understand the issues involved, if we wish to do so, and make it clear, via polls etc., what policies we prefer. The parties and the candidates, via the press and public platforms, can inform us what their policies are and we can make a proper decision. We also know, when we elect a party, who the PM will be and who the senior ministers are likely to be.

    When citizens vote for members of the European Parliament, they are only voting for a small proportion of its total membership who are likely to be outvoted by members elected by citizens of other nations who voted in their own interests. There is no interaction between the electorate and most of the MEPs or the parties they represent. We have no say in who fills the senior positions in the EU, including the Commission, the most powerful EU body which frames most of the laws. It all done in back-door deals with people we never elected and about whom we know little or nothing. Given the numbers, our own PM's say is minimal.

    POINT 2 Centralising too many aspects of law is not productive

    To be meaningful, democracy should be devolved downwards as far as is practical because different areas have different needs and problems and therefore different priorities. There are very real differences between the nations of Europe, population demographics, economic strengths and weaknesses, health issues etc. and many laws are best determined by their own governments who can take account of their priorities. There are many EU laws that are necessary and sensible but some would be better left to our own governments. Pollution is a good example, because we are one of the most crowded nations this issue is difficult to fix without measures that could impact our economy.

    POINT 3 The greater the distance between government and people the more corrupt the former will be

    I don't mean (yet) corruption in the third world sense of leaders using taxes to fund huge palaces but in a more subtle sense. Ego is human nature and many are likely to pursue their own agendas, sometimes with the noblest of intentions. If there is no proper oversight by those who foot the bill, money may be wasted. You can find the enormous number of EU directives online and while many make sense, others do not. One example related to when EU countries had to introduce digital television. Given the negligible amount of programs we share, was that really necessary? When the UK government introduces a dubious law or spends taxpayers' money on something questionable the press will report it and a resulting public outcry can even get it reversed. When the EU does the same we don't have a clue about it and that is likely to mean the wastage goes on.
    What is it telling the objective observer when Brexiters are spending so much energy yakking about Europe when we are now sure to leave ?
    They're so stupid they don't realise what their posts are showing

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    Most arguments for or against Brexit fail to address the major issue, the lack of democracy in the EU. Some say that the EU is democratic because we can vote for the European Parliament and our elected leaders have a say in the European Council but there is much more to meaningful democracy than putting a cross on a piece of paper.

    POINT 1 Voting in the EU is largely meaningless

    A national election is a two way consultation. We can understand the issues involved, if we wish to do so, and make it clear, via polls etc., what policies we prefer. The parties and the candidates, via the press and public platforms, can inform us what their policies are and we can make a proper decision. We also know, when we elect a party, who the PM will be and who the senior ministers are likely to be.

    When citizens vote for members of the European Parliament, they are only voting for a small proportion of its total membership who are likely to be outvoted by members elected by citizens of other nations who voted in their own interests. There is no interaction between the electorate and most of the MEPs or the parties they represent. We have no say in who fills the senior positions in the EU, including the Commission, the most powerful EU body which frames most of the laws. It all done in back-door deals with people we never elected and about whom we know little or nothing. Given the numbers, our own PM's say is minimal.

    POINT 2 Centralising too many aspects of law is not productive

    To be meaningful, democracy should be devolved downwards as far as is practical because different areas have different needs and problems and therefore different priorities. There are very real differences between the nations of Europe, population demographics, economic strengths and weaknesses, health issues etc. and many laws are best determined by their own governments who can take account of their priorities. There are many EU laws that are necessary and sensible but some would be better left to our own governments. Pollution is a good example, because we are one of the most crowded nations this issue is difficult to fix without measures that could impact our economy.

    POINT 3 The greater the distance between government and people the more corrupt the former will be

    I don't mean (yet) corruption in the third world sense of leaders using taxes to fund huge palaces but in a more subtle sense. Ego is human nature and many are likely to pursue their own agendas, sometimes with the noblest of intentions. If there is no proper oversight by those who foot the bill, money may be wasted. You can find the enormous number of EU directives online and while many make sense, others do not. One example related to when EU countries had to introduce digital television. Given the negligible amount of programs we share, was that really necessary? When the UK government introduces a dubious law or spends taxpayers' money on something questionable the press will report it and a resulting public outcry can even get it reversed. When the EU does the same we don't have a clue about it and that is likely to mean the wastage goes on.
    I guess you started writing that last June and have only just finished. Referendum's over.

    Leave a comment:


  • DimPrawn
    replied
    You're wasting your valuable time Xoggoth. Here be the remnants of stupidity. Hopefully as soon as A50 is triggered, they will all fark orf to Germany or similar.

    Then we can all get on with making the predictions come true. That Britain will be the leading G7 economy for next 35 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • scooterscot
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    Most arguments for or against Brexit fail to address the major issue, the lack of democracy in the UK.

    POINT 1 Voting in the UK is largely meaningless

    So say people in Scotland.

    POINT 2 Centralising too many aspects of law is not productive

    Devolution still not being delivered. Everything London centric.

    POINT 3 The greater the distance between government and people the more corrupt the former will be

    The House of Lords, need I say more.
    FTFY

    Leave a comment:


  • xoggoth
    started a topic Democracy, Democracy, Democracy

    Democracy, Democracy, Democracy

    Most arguments for or against Brexit fail to address the major issue, the lack of democracy in the EU. Some say that the EU is democratic because we can vote for the European Parliament and our elected leaders have a say in the European Council but there is much more to meaningful democracy than putting a cross on a piece of paper.

    POINT 1 Voting in the EU is largely meaningless

    A national election is a two way consultation. We can understand the issues involved, if we wish to do so, and make it clear, via polls etc., what policies we prefer. The parties and the candidates, via the press and public platforms, can inform us what their policies are and we can make a proper decision. We also know, when we elect a party, who the PM will be and who the senior ministers are likely to be.

    When citizens vote for members of the European Parliament, they are only voting for a small proportion of its total membership who are likely to be outvoted by members elected by citizens of other nations who voted in their own interests. There is no interaction between the electorate and most of the MEPs or the parties they represent. We have no say in who fills the senior positions in the EU, including the Commission, the most powerful EU body which frames most of the laws. It all done in back-door deals with people we never elected and about whom we know little or nothing. Given the numbers, our own PM's say is minimal.

    POINT 2 Centralising too many aspects of law is not productive

    To be meaningful, democracy should be devolved downwards as far as is practical because different areas have different needs and problems and therefore different priorities. There are very real differences between the nations of Europe, population demographics, economic strengths and weaknesses, health issues etc. and many laws are best determined by their own governments who can take account of their priorities. There are many EU laws that are necessary and sensible but some would be better left to our own governments. Pollution is a good example, because we are one of the most crowded nations this issue is difficult to fix without measures that could impact our economy.

    POINT 3 The greater the distance between government and people the more corrupt the former will be

    I don't mean (yet) corruption in the third world sense of leaders using taxes to fund huge palaces but in a more subtle sense. Ego is human nature and many are likely to pursue their own agendas, sometimes with the noblest of intentions. If there is no proper oversight by those who foot the bill, money may be wasted. You can find the enormous number of EU directives online and while many make sense, others do not. One example related to when EU countries had to introduce digital television. Given the negligible amount of programs we share, was that really necessary? When the UK government introduces a dubious law or spends taxpayers' money on something questionable the press will report it and a resulting public outcry can even get it reversed. When the EU does the same we don't have a clue about it and that is likely to mean the wastage goes on.

Working...
X