|
|
Post by chielamangus on Apr 21, 2017 9:18:28 GMT
Yes, and no. While I agree that those not resident in a country for an extended period should not get to vote, they should be able to vote in their adoptive country. EU membership, particularly, means that nationality should be irrelevant - yet my Belgian neighbour (resident here for 30 years) doesn't get to vote, nor did my Swedish mother in law (resident here for nearly 50 years). If you're going to disenfranchise people based on having long since emigrated, then similarly enfranchise long-term immigrants. Ignoring how the chamber is constituted, it can only be a good thing to have a second chamber to provide checks and balances. Removing the pressures to be re-elected regularly, and reducing the party political influences, means that there should be a calmer, steadier, longer-term view that's lamentably absent in the Commons. No problem with long term permanent immigrants voting - surprised they haven't taken out UK citizenship which would automatically give them the vote and does not involve giving up one's citizenship by birth. But they should not be voting in two countries. Plenty of problems with your support for an unelected chamber. You think "calmer steadier longer term views" can only come from wealthy businessmen, time-serving MPs who are no longer electable or too tired to carry on working, friends of leading politicians, etc? I'm sure that if the current mob occupying the red seats were fully behind Brexit you would have a completely different view!
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Apr 21, 2017 9:25:52 GMT
If the result doesn’t suit my vested interests or political views or the winning margin is something like 51.89% to 48.11% will I be able to start a campaign or even organise a legal challenge to overturn it?  |
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015 
Likes: 5,144
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 21, 2017 10:02:45 GMT
Yes, and no. While I agree that those not resident in a country for an extended period should not get to vote, they should be able to vote in their adoptive country. EU membership, particularly, means that nationality should be irrelevant - yet my Belgian neighbour (resident here for 30 years) doesn't get to vote, nor did my Swedish mother in law (resident here for nearly 50 years). If you're going to disenfranchise people based on having long since emigrated, then similarly enfranchise long-term immigrants. Ignoring how the chamber is constituted, it can only be a good thing to have a second chamber to provide checks and balances. Removing the pressures to be re-elected regularly, and reducing the party political influences, means that there should be a calmer, steadier, longer-term view that's lamentably absent in the Commons. No problem with long term permanent immigrants voting - surprised they haven't taken out UK citizenship which would automatically give them the vote and does not involve giving up one's citizenship by birth. But why? As EU nationals living in an EU country, what other benefit or difference has there been? Indeed. Like I said... Like I said - "Ignoring how the chamber is constituted". There are two separate discussions there. And don't forget lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/how-to-apply.aspx
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Apr 21, 2017 10:11:20 GMT
If the result doesn’t suit my vested interests or political views or the winning margin is something like 51.89% to 48.11% will I be able to start a campaign or even organise a legal challenge to overturn it? Yes, you will. That's the beauty of a law abiding democracy . That having been said I saw Gina Miller on This Week last night and found her to be very unconvincing. Now, whilst I was a remainer I accept the result of the referendum and think we should get on with leaving. Quite how that is to happen is open to question (and I don't trust or have any faith in Johnson, Davis and Fox). But one thing I really don't understand, and I'd welcome it if somebody could explain it to me, is the position of some (LibDems?) who want "another referendum" on the results of the negotiation (and perhaps others who want MPs to vote on the results of the negotiation). Two points:- 1. There are two (or 28!) sides to a negotiation. Why would "the other side" enter into serious negotiations if they had a realistic belief that the results of those negotiations might not actually be accepted by the other party? 2. What exactly is meant to happen if the results of the negotiation are put to a second referendum / MP vote and resulting negotiations are rejected? We start negotiating again? We just tear everything up? The transition period gets extended? Or not? etc etc etc. I might be missing something obvious, but I really don't get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Apr 21, 2017 11:32:23 GMT
If the result doesn’t suit my vested interests or political views or the winning margin is something like 51.89% to 48.11% will I be able to start a campaign or even organise a legal challenge to overturn it? Yes, you will. That's the beauty of a law abiding democracy . That having been said I saw Gina Miller on This Week last night and found her to be very unconvincing. Now, whilst I was a remainer I accept the result of the referendum and think we should get on with leaving. Quite how that is to happen is open to question (and I don't trust or have any faith in Johnson, Davis and Fox). But one thing I really don't understand, and I'd welcome it if somebody could explain it to me, is the position of some (LibDems?) who want "another referendum" on the results of the negotiation (and perhaps others who want MPs to vote on the results of the negotiation). Two points:- 1. There are two (or 28!) sides to a negotiation. Why would "the other side" enter into serious negotiations if they had a realistic belief that the results of those negotiations might not actually be accepted by the other party? 2. What exactly is meant to happen if the results of the negotiation are put to a second referendum / MP vote and resulting negotiations are rejected? We start negotiating again? We just tear everything up? The transition period gets extended? Or not? etc etc etc. I might be missing something obvious, but I really don't get it. If I may say so, you appear to have adopted a pragmatic and democratic approach which as I see it is in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately there are many who, for various reasons, can’t or won’t accept the result – vested interests (I used the expression sardonically by the way), political motives and even some who genuinely believe the EU to be good for the UK, Europe and the world as a whole (I believed that some 40 years ago but my Yes vote in the 1975 referendum wasn’t for a United States of Europe). The LibDems probably fall into all three categories. In calling for a second referendum they are showing their true EEC credentials and profligacy: As you say, “what exactly is meant to happen if the results of the negotiation are put to a second referendum / MP vote and resulting negotiations are rejected? We start negotiating again? We just tear everything up? The transition period gets extended? Or not? etc etc etc.” IMO this would be totally irresponsible, if nothing else, the cost of the exercise would be horrendous in true EEC fashion.
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Apr 21, 2017 13:52:37 GMT
Lets just roll everything into one election. Split the union into 4. Bring English jobs back to England inclusing navy jobs. Only provide social infrastructure to the nations for an exhorbitant fee.
Invite dissenters to colonise the 3 smaler new states.
Pay homage to the dictator from the North with a single track mind
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Apr 21, 2017 13:53:26 GMT
Oops. Last one wasnt finished.
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Apr 21, 2017 13:54:51 GMT
I wonder where in history our nation has done similar before and ended up in the current muddle over their place in the World order?
Anarchists rule!
|
|
phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Apr 21, 2017 14:14:44 GMT
Great opportunity to rid the commons of the "REMOANING MAJORITY" of anti Brexit MP's - Let the people's voice be heard again; nothing to fear from democracy!! So long as those people are part of the 37.5% of the electorate who agree with you, of course. A minority of the electorate voted to join the Common Market in 1975. A minority of the electorate voted to leave the EU in 2016. Surely if a minority was good enough for 1975 then it's good enough for 2016.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Apr 21, 2017 14:36:52 GMT
Lets just roll everything into one election. Split the union into 4. Bring English jobs back to England inclusing navy jobs. Only provide social infrastructure to the nations for an exhorbitant fee. Invite dissenters to colonise the 3 smaler new states. Pay homage to the dictator from the North with a single track mind.Presumably you may be referring to Sturgenion Escoticus? 
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Apr 21, 2017 15:39:28 GMT
Things change & evolve very slowly, but nevertheless, they do change & evolve.
I think we're witnessing the slow destruction of the political party system. Paying someone £75k pa to vote how they're told, or defend something in interview which they don't believe in is, in 2017, ludicrious. As this has dawned on the parties, the invective has become ever more extreme and personal as they struggle to appear relevant.
The media could do us all a solid and stop covering politics to the degree it does at present. Some days it seems the news is mostly politics - with little actual 'news'. Politics coverage contributes to peoples' anger levels.
As I see things, the roadmap is thus:
* GE2015 result started the descent of the Labour Party into chaos.
* The election of Corbyn basically descended them into farce.
* Brexit provided a boost for the LibDems from holdout remainers, but as we leave the EU, this will fade and return them to the fringes - or worse if their opportunism is punished.
* Brexit killed Indy2 - dead, which will, in time destroy the SNP.
* If opinion polls are anything like correct, the Conservatives will eventually have no one to fight but themselves - so they will, and will probably fracture. They're very good at shooting themselves in the foot.
What could replace political parties? Really no idea - but nothing stays the same forever.
Grab popcorn and buckle-up.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Apr 21, 2017 18:25:24 GMT
jo I'm not disagreeing but why did Brexit kill Indy ref 2? The economics are worse now, but they were great to start with! I agree with the comments on political parties... but take it to the extreme. Why have a legislature at all? An executive is needed to declare wars and open supermarkets, but a legislature could be replaced by online voting by all citizens on all issues. It would no doubt be a disaster, but with the growing culture of 'everyone's view being equally valuable' and it could happen. I personally disagree with most things most parties stand for and dislike 'party politics ' but compared with the alternatives it might be the least worse option. RE House of Lords.... it not going for PR in that referendum was a shame. If the electoral commission had learnt the lessons from then, I suspect the Brexit poll (from both sides) could have been very different. Personally I think a 90% PR elected on a different timeline to the HoC with 10% appointed by HoC would work, but what do I know? (See comments about people's views 2 paragraphs up!)
|
|
|
|
Post by reeknralf on Apr 21, 2017 19:48:49 GMT
The UK economy has long been built on a model of importing cheap immigrant labour and manufactured goods whilst exporting expensive financial products and armaments. This is the economic model voted for in a long succession of general elections. The next one looks likely to be the same. Leaving the EU won't change any of this. Our leaders will however need a new whipping boy.
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Apr 22, 2017 9:35:39 GMT
jo I'm not disagreeing but why did Brexit kill Indy ref 2? The economics are worse now, but they were great to start with! I agree with the comments on political parties... but take it to the extreme. Why have a legislature at all? An executive is needed to declare wars and open supermarkets, but a legislature could be replaced by online voting by all citizens on all issues. It would no doubt be a disaster, but with the growing culture of 'everyone's view being equally valuable' and it could happen. I personally disagree with most things most parties stand for and dislike 'party politics ' but compared with the alternatives it might be the least worse option. RE House of Lords.... it not going for PR in that referendum was a shame. If the electoral commission had learnt the lessons from then, I suspect the Brexit poll (from both sides) could have been very different. Personally I think a 90% PR elected on a different timeline to the HoC with 10% appointed by HoC would work, but what do I know? (See comments about people's views 2 paragraphs up!) Re Indy2, I think it's as much a timing thing as anything else. I believe it would be administratively impossible to to navigate a bill permitting another ref during the tumult of the brexit negotiations. Any new bill would be radically different from the 2014 vintage and there simply isn't the number of bodies (civil servants and politicians) to accomplish this. It's my contention that by the time it could come around post brexit, the appetite for it wont be there - hence the snp haste. I could be completely wrong though. As for your other points, |I have no answers, only questions!
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,707
Likes: 2,983
|
Post by michaelc on Apr 22, 2017 13:55:38 GMT
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what I vote. The MP here has been from one party for decades if not centuries. For that reason, none of the parties will devote much energy to campaigning here either.
It does seem unfair that those in marginal constituencies are effecitvely given more power than the rest of us - evidenced by the energy spent by parties on those seats. I'm certainly not a libdem but I do think it is time to change the electorial system into something more proportional. The arguments against usually revolve around letting extreme parties in which I used to subscribe to (the arguments not such parties!). I now think if we had 2 or 3 "beyond the pale" type MPs they would be shown up for who they really are by the many hundreds of other MPs.
|
|
