Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[hoss]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

I reckon the long peace was the result of the Germans and the French getting tired of having their arses kicked - Nuclear weapons kept the peace during the Cold War - not the EU

Nuclear weapons did neither prevent the Korean War nor the Vietnam War or the Afghanistan War, to name just the major "East-West"-conflicts. Up until 1945, German children were taught in school that the French were their arch enemies. If nobody had done anything against the perpetuation of myths like those, Central Europe could have exploded after the end of the Cold War, much like the Balkans did.

[blueboy199]

Hoss, thank you for your responses. I guess we'll have to disagree on the nature of the word "elected" in terms of the EU. Maybe I'll ask Martin Selmayr for his view on it.

Originally Posted by hoss

If you look at the deatails of the statistics you quoted you will find the answer.

I did indeed look at the details, Hoss. The following is the difference between the 1979 and 2014 EU elections of the countries there for the duration.

UK 32% >>> 36% (ironically)
Belgium 91% >>> 90%
Denmark 48% >>> 56%
Germany 66% >>> 48%
Ireland 64% >>> 52%
France 61% >>> 42%
Italy 86% >>> 57%
Lux'bg 89% >>> 86%
Neth'ds 58% >>> 37%

The next 3 countries to participate in EU elections (Greece, Spain and Portugal) have followed a similar trend to most of those above. This seemingly has nothing to do with the 21st century expansionism of the EU. Germany, France, Italy...the three biggest EU economies after the UK leaves. You're welcome to have another effort to explain what I believe to be the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU, hoss. Good luck with that.

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by hoss

Up until 1945, German children were taught in school that the French were their arch enemies.

I was being taught that in 1965 - with the Germans and the Russians thrown in for good measure.

[hoss]

Originally Posted by blueboy199

You're welcome to have another effort to explain what I believe to be the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU, hoss.

In my opinion, a democratic deficit would mean that a group of citizens of the EU is denied the right to candidate or to vote. That is not the case. If people have the right to vote and don´t make use of it, they have to explain something. It is not the fault of the institutions.
And as you set so much value upon democratic legitimation, tell me how the members of the House of Lords come into office!

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by hoss

In my opinion, a democratic deficit would mean that a group of citizens of the EU is denied the right to candidate or to vote. That is not the case. If people have the right to vote and don´t make use of it, they have to explain something. It is not the fault of the institutions.
And as you set so much value upon democratic legitimation, tell me how the members of the House of Lords come into office!

Voter alienation is a reflection on the politicians and on the process. It is not a reflection on the voters, who are expressing a legitimate point of view. This is not however a good strategy IMHO. I vote whenever vote time comes around, and I would be in favour of making voting compulsory; but I would also be in favour in such a case of a "None of the above" box as in Brewsters Millions. I bet NOTB would win on a landslide in most EU elections.

[hoss]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I vote whenever vote time comes around, and I would be in favour of making voting compulsory; but I would also be in favour in such a case of a "None of the above" box as in Brewsters Millions. I bet NOTB would win on a landslide in most EU elections.

I believe NOTB would win in most elections anywhere. Although this is a tempting alternative at first glance, it has two disadvantages. The first one is that it leads to populism. We do already have strong tendencies towards this kind of policy: promising everything to everyone and avoiding anything that is perceived as unpopular. The result will be that policy is effectively made by those who control the mass media.
The second disadvantage is that negative voting basically means refusing the democratic system. In a democracy, criticism has to be constructive, not destructive. If you dislike the alternatives presented to you, you have to come up with an alternative yourself. You can´t simply say no and walk away.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by hoss

I believe NOTB would win in most elections anywhere. Although this is a tempting alternative at first glance, it has two disadvantages. The first one is that it leads to populism. We do already have strong tendencies towards this kind of policy: promising everything to everyone and avoiding anything that is perceived as unpopular. The result will be that policy is effectively made by those who control the mass media.
The second disadvantage is that negative voting basically means refusing the democratic system. In a democracy, criticism has to be constructive, not destructive. If you dislike the alternatives presented to you, you have to come up with an alternative yourself. You can´t simply say no and walk away.

That which some people would describe as "popularism" might equally be described by others as "democratic accountability".

[ultimatewarlord]

Originally Posted by ********

Populism is different. Simple, easy sounding solutions to complex problems that simply don't work. Build a wall, send them "home", everything will magically be better again.

We'll make university tuition free, errm, we might possibly think about maybe seeing if it's feasible to look into the chance of making university tuition free. By the way, thanks for all those extra M.P.s.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by ultimatewarlord

We'll make university tuition free, errm, we might possibly think about maybe seeing if it's feasible to look into the chance of making university tuition free. By the way, thanks for all those extra M.P.s.

People are very tired of being hoodwinked and conned. The politicians need our votes simply to gain place, so of course they promise all sorts of things. But once they are in place they serve others, not the voters, and they use their power to actively work against the voters and in favour of the party donors. Money has a negative impact on debate because it pays for deflecting tactics such as "attack ads" against the opposition. To keep us on-topic, the EU referendum was an extremely good example of how money is used to suppress debate and works against a genuine conversation about issues.

The problem the Remain side had in 2016, as opposed to 1975, was that they could no longer get away with denying that the EU has a federalist agenda and that being a member directly impacts on independence and self-government. They used their funding to deflect attention from any conversation about what the EU is, what its' mission is, and what membership means in terms of long term commitment.

All the Remain campaign talked about was the economic chaos which would ensue, and immediately, if we were naughty and voted to Leave. They had nothing to say about why remaining in the EU would be a positive choice for our national future and something we should actively want. Rather, we got the shroud-waving about what would happen, and the demonising of the mere sympathy with the Leave principle as racist, xenophobic, narrow minded, ignorant, bigoted and so on. But many voters are wise to this now. It is legitimate to want immigration to be regulated and to want labour markets to be protected in a fair and rational way; and that is not a fascist or racist point."Free movement of labour" is a threat to security as well as pay and conditions; and it is not immoral or racist to say this out loud and to demand answers. Neither is it regressive or reactionary to want to be in charge of decisions about what happens on our own soil.

Meanwhile the Leave campaign were well aware that leaving the EU is not a cost-free exercise. There are many important benefits to being an EU member and Britain will certainly forfeit some of the benefits; how much and which benefits are the essence of what is being agreed in Brexit talks. But the Leave campaign represented Leave as a purely positive and cost-free choice. We would even get an extra £350m a week for the NHS. Very dismissive and casual generalisations were made about how straightforward it would be to make a new deal with the EU as a non-member. There was no honest admission that Leave is a hard choice.

This was a facile and childish political campaign. The participants in both official campaigns intentionally and deliberately dumbed it down to kindergarten levels of ignorance and stupidity. It was only from unofficial sources such as (how sad this is) the Wetherspoons pub chain in-house magazine that I could source a rational presentation of the arguments for and against. Money corrupts political debate and is used to deceive and bamboozle voters so that the party donors can pick their pockets. But we are now at the stage when the voters know that their pockets are being repeatedly picked and that the politicians are helping the pick-pockets.

[hoss]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

That which some people would describe as "popularism" might equally be described by others as "democratic accountability".

Democratic accountability means to me that a politician has a stance and tries to convince voters of his point of view.
Populism means that a politician changes his stance according to the perceived opinion of the majority of voters, only to remain in power.
It annoys me that there is an inflation of polls and surveys which put politicials in a permanent campaign mode. It is revealing that many politicians openly use marketing slang about "positioning" themselves, "selling" policy or "branding" a political party.