Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Goliath wrote:
That's not the only reason though.

We had a recession which, 8 years later, we are still barely recovering from due to economic policy, and there's a lot of anger about that which is being partially directed towards immigrants and immigration through widespread media vilification of them.

Yes, disenfranchisement is one of the causes, but it is by no means the only one.

Do you think there would have been a referendum if newspapers hadn't only ever reported the outrageous stories about the EU? There wouldn't be anywhere near as much anger if headlines had read "EU votes on regulation regarding charging cable standardisation" rather than the standard "EU overrides British Court to prevent Hero Father from giving justice to Paedo" type headlines we've been getting?

There's a load of bits which have prompted the rise of this right-wing hatred of the EU, and a fair chunk of them were intentional manipulations by certain media groups.

That is also true. Fascism is always accompanied by propaganda.

But it isn't a good reason for leaving the EU. If leaving should cause another economic problem -- and it will -- that would feed into the continued rise of fascism.

FYI, I was kidding about Choudary. Like I'd base my whole decision on one person. If we leave though it will satisfying to see that he's been defeated in this regard though.

And UKIP supporters are not fascists, despite what UAF would tell you. In fact, UAF are closer to fascists, what with the physical attacks against their opponents.

 Pete Melvin wrote:
Personally I'd vote for anyone that seemed to have a decent plan for the future of the UK and who actually represented the interests of the people, but no party does that at the moment (for me anyway, YMMV)
Both sides of the EU referendum make me sick to my stomach frankly. If its not leave boogieman bullgak, its remain boogieman bullgak. I'll be glad when its over tomorrow, if indeed it is over. I only hope one side wins convincingly and it doesn't drag on forever.

That's never going to happen.

This is going to last until either Britiain is fully absorbed by the EU, or until the EU burns to a crisp.

Thank God it's almost over...

I was going to post a lengthy summary on the good and bad points of this campaign, but I can't be bothered.

Anyway, I want to congratulate my fellow dakka members for a good debate. Dakka is one of the few places where things have been civil and informative.

The newspaper forums have been awful, with idiots from both sides ruining things.

And finally, to my eternal disappointment, we never had the Nigel Farage ate my hamster, headline

I want to say thank you too. I was happy to see that people could put out different opinions without being bullied or censored over it like other places I know.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Pete Melvin wrote:
Personally I'd vote for anyone that seemed to have a decent plan for the future of the UK and who actually represented the interests of the people, but no party does that at the moment (for me anyway, YMMV)
Both sides of the EU referendum make me sick to my stomach frankly. If its not leave boogieman bullgak, its remain boogieman bullgak. I'll be glad when its over tomorrow, if indeed it is over. I only hope one side wins convincingly and it doesn't drag on forever.

That's never going to happen.

This is going to last until either Britiain is fully absorbed by the EU, or until the EU burns to a crisp.

Sadly, I think you are right.

Here are the reasons I shall vote Remain tomorrow.


The economy
The UK has only recently got back to where it was in early 2008. We don’t want another slowdown.

There is no doubt the UK economy will take a hit if we vote Leave. 90% of economists and business leaders say this. The proof is in the reactions of the foreign exchange and stock markets to the ups and downs of the opinion polls.

We don’t know how bad things will be, or how long it will last, but we certainly shall have to play catch up afterwards.

Can the UK's economy grow faster outside the EU? No-one knows.


Trade
If we leave the EU we can make our own trade agreements. The first one we will have to make will be with the EU, to restore the major trade channel we will have lost. This seems a waste of time and effort. Better to stay in the EU and have a seat at the table when trade between the EU and other countries is being discussed.


Red tape
The EU is not the cause of red tape. Our own government generates plenty of red tape by itself.

After leaving we will have to produce a lot of new red tape to satisfy the various trade agreements we will want to enter into. A lot of that red tape will relate to international standards.


Standards
We will have to maintain the same international standards we do now -- in other words EU, US and international standards (some of which are set largely by the UK.)

The EU isn't going to let us trade with them on our own terms. Look at Norway and Switzerland. They are practically EU members in all but name, except they don't have a seat at the table during negotiations and decisions.


International affairs and diplomacy
The UK runs its own foreign policy and armed forces within the EU, and is a member of NATO. This will not change if we Leave.

The UK will remain subject to the European Court for Human Rights, and our treaty obligations will remain in force, if we Leave.

The UK is part of the EU Arrest Warrant system. If we leave, we shall have to negotiate an extradition treaty with the EU. This will be clunkier than the current arrangements.



Transparency and Sovereignty
This is the main area where the EU is lacking. Despite the fact that EU policy and directives are agreed by representatives of the member governments (democratically elected) there is a real concern that its deals are done behind closed doors without proper democratic accountability.

This is something the EU needs to address. By remaining inside the EU we can have a major say in these necessary changes. By leaving, we will have no say, but we will still be restricted by our need to conform with EU standards and laws in order to trade with them.


Immigration
No-one knows the “right” level of emigration, but it’s difficult to believe that 0.5% of population per year is impossible to accommodate. Hits on services are the result of bad planning by our government, and weakness in the economy caused by bad planning by our government.

We have a serious need for talent in various fields including as medicine, engineering and building trade skills. We can’t find these people from our own population so we need immigrants.

We already control non-EU emigration. After Leave, if we want to enter the European Free Market area, we probably will have to accept free movement from EU citizens, like Switzerland and Norway. Nothing will have changed.


Emigration
There is an upside! Britons can freely emigrate to EU countries to live, work or study.


Refugees
The UK's obligations under international law are not dependent on EU membership, and will not go away by leaving the EU.


The Euro
The UK is not bound to join the Euro and has no plans to do so. Because of this, the UK does not make the same level of contributions to European Central Bank funds as Euro nations, and we don’t have serious exposure to Eurozone defaults like Greece.


EU Membership Fees
The net amount of fees is disputed, because the UK gets a rebate, and also has substantial amounts of grants from the EU to both public and private bodies.

In the end we do pay something in, and this is what buys us the advantages of membership like Free Trade and the Arrest Warrant.

If we Leave, and join the Free Market, we will end up having to pay some dues like Norway and Switzerland.


Thanks for reading if you got this far.

Those are pretty much my reasons as well KK, but with the addition of a few others:

Universities
Our university system relies heavily on research grants and collaboration with the EU. These will all be lost in the event of a Leave vote. Considering the gutting of the education system over the past few years I will not be complicit in further eroding the ability of people to get an education, nor Britain's world-leading position of scientific excellence, a position that will surely take a large hit should we lose our agreements.

Not London
Over the past few years, a lot of areas in the north of England and other non-London areas around the UK have undergone regeneration projects, almost all of which were done through EU grants rather than any contribution from the UK government. I do not want to cause these areas and areas like them to be unable to renew themselves, nor am I willing to take the EU's money and run.
In addition, areas such as Northern Ireland and Wales receive a large chunk of their normal funding from the EU due to neglect by Westminster, something which again I will not willingly cause.

Division, Prejudice and Xenophobia
Over the past few years, the atmosphere in this country has become more and more toxic towards foreigners and immigrants. Isolating ourselves by leaving the EU will do absolutely nothing to help this and will likely only deepen the rifts that are already present in our culture. They need to be repaired, not worsened.

LGBT issues
Boris Johnson has argued that LGBT people should vote leave due to the UK being sort-of-ok regarding LGBT issues compared to the rest of europe. My response to this is an angry "Piss off." The EU has been central to the implementation of a lot of the rights and protections that LGBT people currently benefit from in the UK, and a lot of these were directly opposed by the current Tory government. If we were to leave the EU and draw up our own "declaration of rights" as has been bandied about, I have absolutely zero faith that all of the protections offered by EU law would be continued, were it to be written under a Tory government, a situation that is likely to happen should a Leave result happen.

So yeah. That's my bit.

My reason for voting Remain:

There's a small but actually possible chance that the Remain vote in Scotland could be so high and the Leave vote in England so narrow that the UK would actually be kept in Europe by us, and the prospect of basking in the unselfaware, unironic outrage of WM politicians and the English media as they rant about democratic accountability and being forced to do things they dislike against their will, then being able to throw back every smug, self-satisfied comment about "grudge & grievance" etc is just too delicious

Seriously though, my reasoning is somewhere between Ketara's and Paul Mason's - the EU isn't as bad as all that despite its flaws and TTIP/handling of the Greece situation, and what we gain from leaving is a pittance in comparison to being stuck on an island with a Tory government free to implement their agenda with far less to obstruct them.

What's sad though is how apathetic I feel compared to the last referendum - this time both sides were as abysmal as Better Together, every outrageous distortion by one side was matched by an equally ludicrous claim by the other, and only with the accidentally-Nazi poster campaign did Leave finally tip the scales and become the worse of the two.

 Yodhrin wrote:
My reason for voting Remain:

There's a small but actually possible chance that the Remain vote in Scotland could be so high and the Leave vote in England so narrow that the UK would actually be kept in Europe by us, and the prospect of basking in the unselfaware, unironic outrage of WM politicians and the English media as they rant about democratic accountability and being forced to do things they dislike against their will, then being able to throw back every smug, self-satisfied comment about "grudge & grievance" etc is just too delicious

Seriously though, my reasoning is somewhere between Ketara's and Paul Mason's - the EU isn't as bad as all that despite its flaws and TTIP/handling of the Greece situation, and what we gain from leaving is a pittance in comparison to being stuck on an island with a Tory government free to implement their agenda with far less to obstruct them.

What's sad though is how apathetic I feel compared to the last referendum - this time both sides were as abysmal as Better Together, every outrageous distortion by one side was matched by an equally ludicrous claim by the other, and only with the accidentally-Nazi poster campaign did Leave finally tip the scales and become the worse of the two.

Not having a go at you, but one of the main pillars of the Remain argument seems to be that a leave vote will give us Tory Governments for a million years or something, which is plainly nonsense. The left could offer an alternative and win a General Election.

Permanent Tory rule is not set in stone.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c26ab49e-37c4-11e6-a780-b48ed7b6126f.html?siteedition=uk#axzz4C6TPvAWx

High-street banks are stockpiling cash for Friday under orders of the financial regulator, in case a vote to leave the EU prompts mass withdrawals.
With the memory of customers queueing outside Northern Rock branches at the start of the financial crisis still haunting UK authorities, the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority has kept in close contact with the largest banks, including Lloyds Banking Group and the Royal Bank of Scotland, to make sure all cash machines and banking websites are operational and that they are prepared for the aftermath of a Brexit vote in Thursday’s referendum.


As well as the amount of cash they are holding, banks’ IT systems and infrastructure have also come under the scrutiny of the PRA, with lenders being quizzed on how well prepared they are for Thursday and Friday.
The BoE has said that uncertainty about the EU referendum is the biggest risk to the UK’s short-term financial stability, and “possibly” the biggest risk to international markets too.
With the polls still too close to call, George Soros, who made a fortune betting against the pound in 1992 when the UK crashed out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, joined the chorus of financiers forecasting a plunge in sterling’s value if there were a vote to leave the EU. Britain risked another “black Friday”, Mr Soros said.
Making sure the banks have enough cash to cope with mass withdrawals around the time of big events is standard practice for the PRA. It took similar steps before the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.
Some banks have said they are avoiding critical system updates over the period of the referendum.
Giles Williams, a partner at consultancy KPMG, said that banks were being “extremely careful” about undertaking technology updates right now, putting off non-essential work.
However, RBS, which received a £56m fine from the PRA and Financial Conduct Authority after an IT upgrade went wrong in 2012, is in the process of overhauling a large part of its ATM network, replacing cash machines in 300 of its branches in England and Wales.


An RBS banker said that while some activities are put on hold at the time of big events, no problems were forecast in relation to cash machines because the migration process “is so low-risk”.
The BoE declined to comment on specific plans but said: “We are engaging in more intensive supervision with all our big institutions.”
Andrew Bailey, the head of the PRA, has previously said that the regulator was in daily discussions with banks about risks posed by the EU referendum.
Link, which operates the UK’s ATM network, said it was working “to ensure everyone can enjoy safe, reliable and easy access to their cash and we are confident that whatever way the vote goes, ATMs will operate as normal up and down the country”.
London-based legal firms as well as the big banks have said they will run “war rooms” on the night of June 23 and during the day of June 24, to monitor developments and advise clients.
Clifford Chance, one of London’s top law firms, said it was setting up a “24/7 Brexit rapid response unit” to respond to client queries in London, Europe, Asia-Pacific and the Americas.
“The facility will be staffed from the opening of the polls for as long as necessary,” said Clifford Chance’s senior partner, Malcolm Sweeting.
Dechert, another law firm, said it had set up a Brexit hotline for existing and new clients.
TransferWise, a money transfer business, has also announced that it “will limit GBP transfers later in the week”.

Friday is gonna be laugh a minute.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
My reason for voting Remain:

There's a small but actually possible chance that the Remain vote in Scotland could be so high and the Leave vote in England so narrow that the UK would actually be kept in Europe by us, and the prospect of basking in the unselfaware, unironic outrage of WM politicians and the English media as they rant about democratic accountability and being forced to do things they dislike against their will, then being able to throw back every smug, self-satisfied comment about "grudge & grievance" etc is just too delicious

Seriously though, my reasoning is somewhere between Ketara's and Paul Mason's - the EU isn't as bad as all that despite its flaws and TTIP/handling of the Greece situation, and what we gain from leaving is a pittance in comparison to being stuck on an island with a Tory government free to implement their agenda with far less to obstruct them.

What's sad though is how apathetic I feel compared to the last referendum - this time both sides were as abysmal as Better Together, every outrageous distortion by one side was matched by an equally ludicrous claim by the other, and only with the accidentally-Nazi poster campaign did Leave finally tip the scales and become the worse of the two.

Not having a go at you, but one of the main pillars of the Remain argument seems to be that a leave vote will give us Tory Governments for a million years or something, which is plainly nonsense. The left could offer an alternative and win a General Election.

Permanent Tory rule is not set in stone.

Not permanent, no, but almost certainly for the foreseeable future. Does anyone seriously believe that, short of literally everyone in the Tory party being outed as a paedophile, Labour have any shot at the next election? They would struggle even if they were solidly united behind Corbyn and offering policies people want, but caught as they are with Corbyn caving at every turn and Blairites briefing against him relentlessly I don't believe for a second anyone but the Tories will win in England in 2020(and in so doing, win the whole UK). That leaves the Tories in charge during the EU withdrawal negotiations, it leaves the Tories in charge during the subsequent international treaty negotiations, and then it leaves us with a Tory government for a minimum of five further years free to do their worst without anyone to restrain them.

Given they've already managed to functionally end the NHS in England and turned the incapacity benefit system into a total horror show that treats the sick & disabled like lying cattle even while within the EU, the thought of what they could do to what little remains of the postwar consensus at a pan-UK level in five unfettered years is horrifying to me.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Given they've already managed to functionally end the NHS in England and turned the incapacity benefit system into a total horror show that treats the sick & disabled like lying cattle even while within the EU, the thought of what they could do to what little remains of the postwar consensus at a pan-UK level in five unfettered years is horrifying to me.

You've missed out what has happened in education. I'm a school governor and I think it's even worse than the NHS. No functional tests for primary schools, the Department recently told us there would be "many years" of uncertainty about tests... and of course Gove was at the forefront of eliminating parents' voice from educution, with the removal of mandatory parent governors.Out of 142 LA education departments, over 120 are not financially viable as so much money has been taken out of the system, so soon all democratic oversight will be gone. I was told this morning mine will be gone within a year and we have to work out what to do without them.

It's totally beyond belief. I don't really tell acquaintances about it as it's all done now, a fait accompli.

After the referendum, the next step will be to reform our own systems, so that one party doesn't get to ride rough over everything. But I don't think it's fair to rely on an unelected unaccountable body to restrain a democratically elected government.

Exactly; the Tories (the only real party at the moment) have almost destroyed public services in the last sitting, with the EU. I've got approximately zero faith that they won't do even worse without any oversight.


We tried reforming the electoral system before the last general election, and it failed. Why would we try and reform anything again if we leave the EU, when the people responsible for making those changes are also the only ones to lose out from it?



Another thing has occurred to me; if it's going to take 2+ years to unroll the Libson treaty, in order to leave the EU, how much is the act of leaving alone going to actually cost in terms of man hours / resources that could do something else?

If we're talking about an economy that's going to tank momentarily, then we'll have to pay out for that effort first before we can start being any better off.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
After the referendum, the next step will be to reform our own systems, so that one party doesn't get to ride rough over everything. But I don't think it's fair to rely on an unelected unaccountable body to restrain a democratically elected government.

Yup. So it's good that doesn't happen, in Europe, right? As in, elected MEPs get to vote on laws - rather than in the UK where party donors ie Lords can change laws at the last moment.

It's good, too, that in the EU any one nation can veto laws on crucial issues like defence.

Democratic oversight is wonderful. Shame, as mentioned before, it's being eliminated from the UK educational system at local level.

We'd also get a lot more representation in the EU if our MEP's actually bothered to show up and represent us, too.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
After the referendum, the next step will be to reform our own systems, so that one party doesn't get to ride rough over everything. But I don't think it's fair to rely on an unelected unaccountable body to restrain a democratically elected government.

Yup. So it's good that doesn't happen, in Europe, right? As in, elected MEPs get to vote on laws - rather than in the UK where party donors ie Lords can change laws at the last moment.

It's good, too, that in the EU any one nation can veto laws on crucial issues like defence.

Democratic oversight is wonderful. Shame, as mentioned before, it's being eliminated from the UK educational system at local level.

Nothing to stop the British people from voting for a government that restores oversight at a local level. Nothing is set in stone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
We'd also get a lot more representation in the EU if our MEP's actually bothered to show up and represent us, too.[/quote


Even if they turned up all day every day, they can still get outvoted.

Within the current British system as it has changed over the years it's arguable whether the government is democratically elected. The PM is not elected. The ruling party can be elected by 36% of the votes cast (only 24% of possible electors, if stay-at-homes are included).

The PM's powers are quite extensive.

In the past 35 years there has been a strong move towards centralisation, and a growth in unelected QUANGOs and their budgets (despite several bonfires of them.)

The Civil Service has been deskilled and demoralised, the Cabinet system has been devalued and we have the Prime Minister's office increasingly used a major centre of policy and working practices outside the old system, with private consultants instead of civil servants. This is a presidential style of government.

Then look at the amount of legislation that sets up systems for altering things by orders in council, which are decided outside parliament and don't have to be debated or voted on.

There have been a few improvements. For example, chairmen of Select Committees to be elected by MPs rather than appointed by the ruling party and obviously the various regional assemblies.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Even if they turned up all day every day, they can still get outvoted.

Indeed, but if they never turn up then they are always outvoted. Plus, IIRC, in the votes we've taken part in, we've been on the winning side about 92% of the time, so it's not as if we're being run roughshod by the EU as the Leave campaigners want to claim.
It's just not fair to claim that the EU is undemocratic and we're completely ignored, when our representatives deliberately don't get involved (like Nigel Farage). It's exactly the same as claiming that our own government don't represent us when we didn't vote. (They don't represent me, because I was one of the 64% that voted against them).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Within the current British system as it has changed over the years it's arguable whether the government is democratically elected. The PM is not elected. The ruling party can be elected by 36% of the votes cast (only 24% of possible electors, if stay-at-homes are included).

The PM's powers are quite extensive.

In the past 35 years there has been a strong move towards centralisation, and a growth in unelected QUANGOs and their budgets (despite several bonfires of them.)

The Civil Service has been deskilled and demoralised, the Cabinet system has been devalued and we have the Prime Minister's office increasingly used a major centre of policy and working practices outside the old system, with private consultants instead of civil servants. This is a presidential style of government.

Then look at the amount of legislation that sets up systems for altering things by orders in council, which are decided outside parliament and don't have to be debated or voted on.

There have been a few improvements. For example, chairmen of Select Committees to be elected by MPs rather than appointed by the ruling party and obviously the various regional assemblies.

I don't dispute any of this, and I agree with all of it, and you'll probably call me a naïve idealist

BUT

the British people can change any of this at any time. Society gets the democracy it deserves...

I was reading about the reform acts and the Chartist movement. British people have a history of changing things when they're in the mood...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Nothing to stop the British people from voting for a government that restores oversight at a local level. Nothing is set in stone.

Except we're pretty much in a single party race now; labour has destroyed itself from inside, Lib Dems have no credibility left, Greens never got anywhere, and the other parties are all very local.

We could have had a Labour/SNP coalition that might have made a majority, if Labour hadn't refused to consider it.

So whilst we could vote in someone to replace the Tories, there's no credible option yet, and they'll only get voted out once they've turned enough people against them.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Even if they turned up all day every day, they can still get outvoted.

Indeed, but if they never turn up then they are always outvoted. Plus, IIRC, in the votes we've taken part in, we've been on the winning side about 92% of the time, so it's not as if we're being run roughshod by the EU as the Leave campaigners want to claim.
It's just not fair to claim that the EU is undemocratic and we're completely ignored, when our representatives deliberately don't get involved (like Nigel Farage). It's exactly the same as claiming that our own government don't represent us when we didn't vote. (They don't represent me, because I was one of the 64% that voted against them).

To be fair to Farage and I don't like being fair to Farage

He's made no secret of his desire to end the EU, so his no show is part of his strategy, to de-legitimise it, like what Sinn Fein MPs do at Westminster. I don't like it, but I can understand it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I don't dispute any of this, and I agree with all of it, and you'll probably call me a naïve idealist

BUT

the British people can change any of this at any time. Society gets the democracy it deserves...

I was reading about the reform acts and the Chartist movement. British people have a history of changing things when they're in the mood...

With our current media? Not likely. The Sun is the most widely read paper in Britain, isn't it?

The last time we tried to bring in some form of reform (AV) it was savagely mauled by the Tories and all the right-wing press, which is the majority of the press in terms of readership.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


To be fair to Farage and I don't like being fair to Farage

He's made no secret of his desire to end the EU, so his no show is part of his strategy, to de-legitimise it, like what Sinn Fein MPs do at Westminster. I don't like it, but I can understand it.

But if he does that then he should also accept the effects of that and not get paid for a job he isn't doing, or claiming benefits for a job he isn't doing. He can't not participate but still keep the perks.

All his no-showing did was remove the British peoples voice. He harps on about the british fishing industry when he was meant to be on that committee, fighting for those british fishermen. That he now claims to stand beside them is possibly the most disgusting hypocrisy of the whole campaign.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I don't dispute any of this, and I agree with all of it, and you'll probably call me a naïve idealist

BUT

the British people can change any of this at any time. Society gets the democracy it deserves...

I was reading about the reform acts and the Chartist movement. British people have a history of changing things when they're in the mood...

With our current media? Not likely. The Sun is the most widely read paper in Britain, isn't it?

The last time we tried to bring in some form of reform (AV) it was savagely mauled by the Tories and all the right-wing press, which is the majority of the press in terms of readership.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


To be fair to Farage and I don't like being fair to Farage

He's made no secret of his desire to end the EU, so his no show is part of his strategy, to de-legitimise it, like what Sinn Fein MPs do at Westminster. I don't like it, but I can understand it.

But if he does that then he should also accept the effects of that and not get paid for a job he isn't doing, or claiming benefits for a job he isn't doing. He can't not participate but still keep the perks.

All his no-showing did was remove the British peoples voice. He harps on about the british fishing industry when he was meant to be on that committee, fighting for those british fishermen. That he now claims to stand beside them is possibly the most disgusting hypocrisy of the whole campaign.

You're forgetting that a lot of people voted against AV, as rightly or wrongly, it was seen as a Nick Clegg vanity project, and people wanted to stick two fingers up at Clegg.

Agree with you about Farage and the Fishermen.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Within the current British system as it has changed over the years it's arguable whether the government is democratically elected. The PM is not elected. The ruling party can be elected by 36% of the votes cast (only 24% of possible electors, if stay-at-homes are included).

.... .... ....

the British people can change any of this at any time. Society gets the democracy it deserves...

I was reading about the reform acts and the Chartist movement. British people have a history of changing things when they're in the mood...

We pissed away a good chance in the Proportional Representation referendum a few years ago.

The question was too specific. It should have been whether to develop a PR system, not specifically AV. There are lots of ways it could be done.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Within the current British system as it has changed over the years it's arguable whether the government is democratically elected. The PM is not elected. The ruling party can be elected by 36% of the votes cast (only 24% of possible electors, if stay-at-homes are included).

The PM's powers are quite extensive.

In the past 35 years there has been a strong move towards centralisation, and a growth in unelected QUANGOs and their budgets (despite several bonfires of them.)

The Civil Service has been deskilled and demoralised, the Cabinet system has been devalued and we have the Prime Minister's office increasingly used a major centre of policy and working practices outside the old system, with private consultants instead of civil servants. This is a presidential style of government.

Then look at the amount of legislation that sets up systems for altering things by orders in council, which are decided outside parliament and don't have to be debated or voted on.

There have been a few improvements. For example, chairmen of Select Committees to be elected by MPs rather than appointed by the ruling party and obviously the various regional assemblies.

Blame Tony Blair for that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


You're forgetting that a lot of people voted against AV, as rightly or wrongly, it was seen as a Nick Clegg vanity project, and people wanted to stick two fingers up at Clegg.

Agree with you about Farage and the Fishermen.

But why was that perception there, is the question?

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Within the current British system as it has changed over the years it's arguable whether the government is democratically elected. The PM is not elected. The ruling party can be elected by 36% of the votes cast (only 24% of possible electors, if stay-at-homes are included).

The PM's powers are quite extensive.

In the past 35 years there has been a strong move towards centralisation, and a growth in unelected QUANGOs and their budgets (despite several bonfires of them.)

The Civil Service has been deskilled and demoralised, the Cabinet system has been devalued and we have the Prime Minister's office increasingly used a major centre of policy and working practices outside the old system, with private consultants instead of civil servants. This is a presidential style of government.

Then look at the amount of legislation that sets up systems for altering things by orders in council, which are decided outside parliament and don't have to be debated or voted on.

There have been a few improvements. For example, chairmen of Select Committees to be elected by MPs rather than appointed by the ruling party and obviously the various regional assemblies.

Blame Tony Blair for that.

The rot started with Thatcher. Blair did a lot of damage and Cameron has continued with it.

It would be foolish to predict the result, because the polls are so close, but I will predict this:

Regardless of the vote, the UK is coming to an end IMO.

If it's a leave vote, I think Scotland will go in a few years.

If it's remain, UKIP's support will skyrocket, as anybody who voted leave will never return to Lab/Lib/Con, and we'll see a rise of English nationalism, which will break the Union...

The greatest union in history, UK plc, is coming to an end


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


You're forgetting that a lot of people voted against AV, as rightly or wrongly, it was seen as a Nick Clegg vanity project, and people wanted to stick two fingers up at Clegg.

Agree with you about Farage and the Fishermen.

But why was that perception there, is the question?

This is just my opinion, but a lot of people blame Clegg for the Tory coalition in 2010, because without Liberal support, it wouldn't have happened.

Whether the country needed it or not, is another debate, but that's my take. So any chance to punish Clegg (AV referendum) was gleefully taken.

I voted against it, because I thought the proposals were half-baked and made on the hoof.