The EU - Leave or Remain?

[akirk]

on the other hand the Head of State has selflessly (and at 90 still working 40 hours per week) given her all to this country - far beyond the level of commitment we see from our politicians...

the bishops - and numbers are reduced - equally provide a counter-point to the paid MPs - as do the rest of the house of lords...
they are an interesting bunch - if you think of them as a board / set of non-exec directors then they have a valuable role to play and at £300 per day (to include all expenses and stay in London) and no salary, they must be about the cheapest bunch of non-exec directors in the world - fantastic value for money... yes it is important to get the right people, but as a concept it is fantastic...

so both royals and house of lords are arguably amongst the best value any country has within their political system - they exemplify the British sense of service... I know members of both and am not sure I would want to do either - hard work and badly paid - I certainly think that £300 per day for the house of lords to include all expenses is very low - the vast majority of people in that type of role / with that level of responsibility will be earning considerable magnitudes more...

Alasdair
P.S. not sure the Catholic thing is relevant any more - c.f. Camilla...

[Strangely Brown]

We only really have a vote if you happen to believe in the policies of either of the two major parties. /just look at the fraction of the vote UKIP received at the last election compared to the number of seats they won - you can do the same with the SNP too. Then try and convince me we have fair representation, never mind the chance of having a government from neither of the two major parties.

I agree with you completely. The point, though, is that it is OUR government, voted for by US, not some faceless EU group over which we have no power. And if the system is flawed then at least we have the option to change it.

Long ago I came to the conclusion that the handing of powers to a government in Europe is wrong on so many levels. When a party is given a mandate to run the country for five years at a general election, they are LOANED that power by the people. At the end of that period, that mandate must be handed back to the people. It is not something that can be given away. Only the people can do that, and this is what the referendum is all about. If we stay in then we are effectively signing away the country to become part of a European Federal SuperState. The goal of the EU is not a secret. Cameron is right - this is a one-way deal.

[sussex2]

on the other hand the Head of State has selflessly (and at 90 still working 40 hours per week) given her all to this country - far beyond the level of commitment we see from our politicians...

the bishops - and numbers are reduced - equally provide a counter-point to the paid MPs - as do the rest of the house of lords...
they are an interesting bunch - if you think of them as a board / set of non-exec directors then they have a valuable role to play and at £300 per day (to include all expenses and stay in London) and no salary, they must be about the cheapest bunch of non-exec directors in the world - fantastic value for money... yes it is important to get the right people, but as a concept it is fantastic...

so both royals and house of lords are arguably amongst the best value any country has within their political system - they exemplify the British sense of service... I know members of both and am not sure I would want to do either - hard work and badly paid - I certainly think that £300 per day for the house of lords to include all expenses is very low - the vast majority of people in that type of role / with that level of responsibility will be earning considerable magnitudes more...

Alasdair
P.S. not sure the Catholic thing is relevant any more - c.f. Camilla...

But we didn't elect them and that in a 21st century modern state is simply not on (Purely of course IMO).
A Catholic may marry a member of the Royal Household but cannot become the Monarch.
The reason the Duke of Norfolk stands beside the monarch at state occasions is historic - keep your enemy close

Edited to add:

The Duke of Norfolk is the senior lay Catholic in the country.

[akirk]

The duke of Norfolk is also Garter King which is more the reason for being beside the monarch life at that level is far more complex than it seems!

so, you would vote remain to be run by the unelected because you don't believe in the monarchy because they are unelected?!
I think I would prefer the unelected with a tradition of service (our monarchy) than the unelected who on the surface appear to be there primarily for their own power / gain

Alasdair

[jont-]

We only really have a vote if you happen to believe in the policies of either of the two major parties. /just look at the fraction of the vote UKIP received at the last election compared to the number of seats they won - you can do the same with the SNP too. Then try and convince me we have fair representation, never mind the chance of having a government from neither of the two major parties.

I agree with you completely. The point, though, is that it is OUR government, voted for by US, not some faceless EU group over which we have no power. And if the system is flawed then at least we have the option to change it.

We do have power over the EU. Did you not vote in the european elections? I'm not sure why you think the EU is any less representative than Westminster. If anything, they are more representative (as they use PR, not FPTP). But your vote counts for a smaller fraction overall as the population is much larger.

As for changing the system While the two major parties can take it in turns to swap around every few years it's never going to change. Look at the "choice" they offered last time we had a debate on electoral reform.

[akirk]

We can vote for a small part of those involved in running the EU - we as a country do not have electoral authority over the whole set of those involved in running the EU, therefore we do not have authority over those who would then rule our country...

We do though as a nation have 100% electoral authority over those who run the UK... the one weakness in this argument is of course the House of Lords - personally I think they do a good job, but I wouldn't be against the concept that it should be an elected chamber - however we would be partially giving away some of the benefits we have (c.f. above as to duty & costs etc.)

In the USA there is a vote for the president - do we vote for the president of the EU?

There are 7 sectors to authority in the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituti ... pean_Union)
- European Council
- Council of the European Union
- European Parliament
- European Commission
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- European Central Bank
- European Court of Auditors

how many of those are answerable to us / how many or what % can we alter or replace?
we can't - if you think of the UK as just being a part of Europe then it could be argued that Europe as a whole does have far more authority - but that simply confirms that we would be handing over our country to the authority of 7 institutions elected / or non-elected, but decided by the whole of Europe - we as a nation would no longer have control over our destiny, we would be absorbed into the wider Europe as a district not a sovereign nation...

Alasdair

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

- European Council
- Council of the European Union

I can't find a reference online, but I'm reminded of Jasper Carrott and the European Cup Winners Cup Winners Winners Cup Winners Shield ...

[jont-]

We can vote for a small part of those involved in running the EU - we as a country do not have electoral authority over the whole set of those involved in running the EU, therefore we do not have authority over those who would then rule our country...

We do though as a nation have 100% electoral authority over those who run the UK... the one weakness in this argument is of course the House of Lords - personally I think they do a good job, but I wouldn't be against the concept that it should be an elected chamber - however we would be partially giving away some of the benefits we have (c.f. above as to duty & costs etc.)

In the USA there is a vote for the president - do we vote for the president of the EU?

There are 7 sectors to authority in the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituti ... pean_Union)
- European Council
- Council of the European Union
- European Parliament
- European Commission
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- European Central Bank
- European Court of Auditors

how many of those are answerable to us / how many or what % can we alter or replace?
we can't - if you think of the UK as just being a part of Europe then it could be argued that Europe as a whole does have far more authority - but that simply confirms that we would be handing over our country to the authority of 7 institutions elected / or non-elected, but decided by the whole of Europe - we as a nation would no longer have control over our destiny, we would be absorbed into the wider Europe as a district not a sovereign nation...

Alasdair

What fraction of the UK civil service or UK supreme court did you vote for? How much say do you think Rupert Murdoch has in UK gov't policy, compared to his influence on European policy? And how do you think that factors against your own influence? Do you have more faith in Westminster MPs or Europe holding companies like Google and Microsoft to account?

I still don't understand this "control of our own destiny" obsession, or why people think partnering with others is a bad idea. The UK is a tiny nation on the world stage. To pretend otherwise is arrogance or rose tinted specs from imperial days.

Yes, there's lots of stuff that might be suboptimal about europe, but on balance I think being part of it and working together with others is a better way forwards than isolation and protectionism.

[Gareth]

The UK is a tiny nation on the world stage. To pretend otherwise is arrogance or rose tinted specs from imperial days.

Fifth or sixth largest economy does not make the UK a tiny nation.

[akirk]

What fraction of the UK civil service or UK supreme court did you vote for? How much say do you think Rupert Murdoch has in UK gov't policy, compared to his influence on European policy? And how do you think that factors against your own influence? Do you have more faith in Westminster MPs or Europe holding companies like Google and Microsoft to account?

I still don't understand this "control of our own destiny" obsession, or why people think partnering with others is a bad idea. The UK is a tiny nation on the world stage. To pretend otherwise is arrogance or rose tinted specs from imperial days.

Yes, there's lots of stuff that might be suboptimal about europe, but on balance I think being part of it and working together with others is a better way forwards than isolation and protectionism.

I voted for 100% of the system that appoints both civil service and supreme court, and if we had major problems with either the UK people could vote in those who could / would change it - we can't do that with the EU as we are not the full constituency...

Alasdair