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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Not if it required a specified majority of the regions to vote for a constitutional change (like in the US where you need 2/3rds of the states to bring in a constitutional amendment, if I remember it correctly) in order for it to pass. Then it would depend on how these regions were set up as to whether it would have been possible for Leave to win 2/3rds of the regions with only 52% of the national vote.

Are you suggesting that every time a foreign policy change is enacted by a government, it should need to be ratified by regional assemblies? Because if so, that just leads to the situation whereby your vote can be horribly devalued depending on where you live, and the general undermining of democracy. Unless you're going to set up a Scottish Parliament equivalent for every region of six million people. In which case, then again, you just end up with the same scenario, where Scotland can be outvoted by the rest of Britain and made to do something against its will.

In other words, it either combines the undermining of national government with the undermining of democracy, or institutes the undermining of national government for no discernible change in the situation with regards to Scotland.

I'm with Malus on this one, Ketara, - I voted leave, but I recognise the vote was pretty close.

If we had a senate, and regions for England, London, and other places that voted remain, might have acted as a counter-balance in such a crucial vote, and had a majority still voted to leave, say the 2/3rds clause, it would have been a lot fairer, in my view.

Obviously, we can't have a vote on every foreign policy discussion, just the big decisions like EU membership, otherwise, government would grind to a halt.

And if we had a US style senate with the senate having some powers denied to Parliament, I think we'd be in a better position for checks and balances...

Would it change the Scotland situation? I don't know...

 Ketara wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Not if it required a specified majority of the regions to vote for a constitutional change (like in the US where you need 2/3rds of the states to bring in a constitutional amendment, if I remember it correctly) in order for it to pass. Then it would depend on how these regions were set up as to whether it would have been possible for Leave to win 2/3rds of the regions with only 52% of the national vote.

Are you suggesting that every time a foreign policy change is enacted by a government, it should need to be ratified by regional assemblies? Because if so, that just leads to the situation whereby your vote can be horribly devalued depending on where you live, and the general undermining of democracy. Unless you're going to set up a Scottish Parliament equivalent for every region of six million people. In which case, then again, you just end up with the same scenario, where Scotland can be outvoted by the rest of Britain and made to do something against its will.

In other words, it either combines the undermining of national government with the undermining of democracy, or institutes the undermining of national government for no discernible change in the situation with regards to Scotland.

Leaving the EU is not just Foreign Policy, though. It has impacts across too wide an area to be put entirely into that box. It is more akin to a constitutional change than a purely foreign policy one.

 Frozocrone wrote:


The economy was always going to drop after the Brexit result came through since no-one knew what would happen. Markets hate uncertainty. The pound has only recovered slightly since Theresa May won the PM bid - it's nowhere near what it was before the referendum though. This is only the short term effects, we're yet to see the long term effects. There are already talks of the science and research sector missing out on world leading researchers for collaborations and funding (which may or may not get replaced). Then we need to see just exactly what Theresa May manages to get for us in the Brexit deal, if it even happens (was a quiet Remainer), never mind making new trade deals with other countries such as the USA and Canada (since the existing deals were made through the EU). Furthermore, the media is either Brexit or Bremain. You'll never get neutral facts within the media, you'll need to do your own research.

Also I am offended that you proclaim that Britain voted the right way. 48% of voters would disagree with you. It was an incredibly close call and while I dejectedly accepted the result, to suggest that we had voted the correct decision and disregard the people who voted Remain is a slap in the face. Especially for those of us (myself included) who will be living a good 60 years or so with this monumental decision. As a result I am considering my options about moving abroad. Brexit could be the best thing that the UK ever did, likewise it could be the worst thing that the UK ever did - and I'm not willing to take the risk if it's the latter.

I actually didn't proclaim they voted the "right" way, I did congratulate them on leaving the EU though, which in my opinion was a good move. I am pointing out the double standard of the British left in regards to the Media. Anyone with knowledge of the market knew just as you said, that the market would decline directly after the BREXIT vote, I also heard on a news radio program that one of the reasons for its sharp decline was that the Media had been saying the BREXIT vote was a sure thing to fail and a lot of businesses tried to capitalize on that, and when the vote passed they quickly did a 180 and attempted to salvage their previous investments.

In other words, everyone knew the market would crash for a bit until confidence had been restored. The Left wing media outlets were screaming as I mentioned, hell even here in America I listened to no fewer then three experts on the British economy talking on NPR and another radio station about how this was a huge sign, and that the economy would remain this bad because of the "racist" right wing nutjobs voting to leave. They actually used the word Racist mind you. Apparently for disagreeing with the left they are all racists.

Now that the vote is a bit older the market has recovered remarkably well, if you look at the numbers the British stock market the FTSE 100 is at its highest point since August of last year and is STILL going up!

Those same news outlets here in the U.S. and those same experts on the British economy are not coming forwards to redact their statements, nor to apologize for their rash reaction, that is the problem. I hate America's two party system because your either right or your left, with very little in the way of a middle ground, and in England it appears that is the case now as well.

The FTSE 250, however, is not recovering so quickly and more accurately represents british businesses as a whole (the FTSE 100 is heavily skewed to large International businesses which will be less affected by Brexit than the smaller companies included in the 250). That is currently still down on the pre-vote level.

The Pound is also still way down against the dollar, which could affect fuel prices. Pound also still way down against the Euro. They also do not seem to be recovering.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The FTSE 250, however, is not recovering so quickly and more accurately represents british businesses as a whole (the FTSE 100 is heavily skewed to large International businesses which will be less affected by Brexit than the smaller companies included in the 250). That is currently still down on the pre-vote level.

The Pound is also still way down against the dollar, which could affect fuel prices. Pound also still way down against the Euro. They also do not seem to be recovering.

I've said this a dozen times before, but again for both sides; trying to measure the economic difficulties brexit caused won't be feasible until we have a few years worth of data to draw from. It'll take another five years of data after that before we can ascertain whether it was a good, bad or negligible thing.

At the moment, I could cherry pick an economic argument and data to support either position, and that's because there's no real argument to be made either way as of yet beyond 'The markets are a bit jittery because of uncertainty'. They could correct by next week, or do the opposite, and then reverse again after whichever one.

 Ketara wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The FTSE 250, however, is not recovering so quickly and more accurately represents british businesses as a whole (the FTSE 100 is heavily skewed to large International businesses which will be less affected by Brexit than the smaller companies included in the 250). That is currently still down on the pre-vote level.

The Pound is also still way down against the dollar, which could affect fuel prices. Pound also still way down against the Euro. They also do not seem to be recovering.

I've said this a dozen times before, but again for both sides; trying to measure the economic difficulties brexit caused won't be feasible until we have a few years worth of data to draw from. It'll take another five years of data after that before we can ascertain whether it was a good, bad or negligible thing.

At the moment, I could cherry pick an economic argument and data to support either position, and that's because there's no real argument to be made either way as of yet beyond 'The markets are a bit jittery because of uncertainty'. They could correct by next week, or do the opposite, and then reverse again after whichever one.

Agreed. I think the true impact on our markets will be when the negotiations for the exit begin and when the final deal is announced. If the UK cannot get the passports businesses want then we may be in serious trouble. If we can get them then things will probably be the same as if we had stayed.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The FTSE 250, however, is not recovering so quickly and more accurately represents british businesses as a whole (the FTSE 100 is heavily skewed to large International businesses which will be less affected by Brexit than the smaller companies included in the 250). That is currently still down on the pre-vote level.

The Pound is also still way down against the dollar, which could affect fuel prices. Pound also still way down against the Euro. They also do not seem to be recovering.

That is a very misleading post. The FTSE 250 is recovered completely to where it was prior to the vote and is only slightly lower then it was at the start of the year, The Left aggrandized the sudden drop in the stock market on June 27th saying this is how the british economy would be from then on. Two weeks later though, the FTSE250 went up about 2k points, or in other words, recovering to pre-vote levels as you said.


As far as the British pound, if you look at the numbers, the British pound has been steadily declining for years, you can either attribute that to global uncertainties, the rise of the Chinese Yen or you can blame all of it on a single vote that happened years after the decline started.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The FTSE 250, however, is not recovering so quickly and more accurately represents british businesses as a whole (the FTSE 100 is heavily skewed to large International businesses which will be less affected by Brexit than the smaller companies included in the 250). That is currently still down on the pre-vote level.

The Pound is also still way down against the dollar, which could affect fuel prices. Pound also still way down against the Euro. They also do not seem to be recovering.

I've said this a dozen times before, but again for both sides; trying to measure the economic difficulties brexit caused won't be feasible until we have a few years worth of data to draw from. It'll take another five years of data after that before we can ascertain whether it was a good, bad or negligible thing.

At the moment, I could cherry pick an economic argument and data to support either position, and that's because there's no real argument to be made either way as of yet beyond 'The markets are a bit jittery because of uncertainty'. They could correct by next week, or do the opposite, and then reverse again after whichever one.

Agree completely, which is why I pointed out that the "Economic" experts that news outlets keep producing are about as much use as a fart in a space suit.

SemperMortis wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The FTSE 250, however, is not recovering so quickly and more accurately represents british businesses as a whole (the FTSE 100 is heavily skewed to large International businesses which will be less affected by Brexit than the smaller companies included in the 250). That is currently still down on the pre-vote level.

The Pound is also still way down against the dollar, which could affect fuel prices. Pound also still way down against the Euro. They also do not seem to be recovering.

That is a very misleading post. The FTSE 250 is recovered completely to where it was prior to the vote and is only slightly lower then it was at the start of the year, The Left aggrandized the sudden drop in the stock market on June 27th saying this is how the british economy would be from then on. Two weeks later though, the FTSE250 went up about 2k points, or in other words, recovering to pre-vote levels as you said.

FTSE 250 on June 23rd: 17,333.51.
FTSE 250 today: 16,790.90
For most of June it was around the 17,000 mark.

It's close but not at the same level.

Also, the pound may have been declining for years but never so harshly except for ~Jan 2009.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As always with the Scotland issue, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm aware we disagree on the whole referendum thing, but that wasn't the point of my post. I'm genuinely curious as to exactly what action or solution could be undertaken to acknowledge the fact Scotland can vote differently without either undermining democracy in Britain (e.g. prioritising Scottish opinion above British), or effectively undermining the primacy of the British Government (e.g. another indyref every time a policy shift occurs). Can you think of anything? Because I honestly can't, and I'm curious to see if anyone else can.

A full federal solution, with an elected senate to replace the lords, and England divided into regions to balance things up. That would be a big help and a good start.

It's not England's fault for being 85% of the UK's population, but it's high time something was done to address the issue.

I have sometimes thought that a senate similar to the US model, with two representatives from each shire, might be a good idea. This obviously still gives the English nation a majority of the seats, but it should be considered that the English nation is very far from a monobloc. If London had the same weight in the UK senate as Derbyshire or Cornwall, that would go a long way to reducing the current concentration of power in the south-east.

Bit late on this but, has anyone else enjoyed the irony of unelected leaders of labour past, telling JC he's unelectable?

I guess it takes one to know one.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As always with the Scotland issue, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm aware we disagree on the whole referendum thing, but that wasn't the point of my post. I'm genuinely curious as to exactly what action or solution could be undertaken to acknowledge the fact Scotland can vote differently without either undermining democracy in Britain (e.g. prioritising Scottish opinion above British), or effectively undermining the primacy of the British Government (e.g. another indyref every time a policy shift occurs). Can you think of anything? Because I honestly can't, and I'm curious to see if anyone else can.

A full federal solution, with an elected senate to replace the lords, and England divided into regions to balance things up. That would be a big help and a good start.

The House of Lords is broken, but not for reasons some think.

Do you know when the Uk government was able to draft in a raft of new draconian legislation.
Its was after getting rid of (most of) the hereditaries.

People assume the hereditaries were all tories, all the time. When in fact it was they who put the brakes on Thatcher, not the elected or appointee parlimentarians. When they did the same to Blair he got rid of them because he wasnt going to shand for anyone being in his way.
Then replaced them with appointees, made more peers than anyone since the time of William the Conqueror.

Elect the whole house you might say. But the reason we have our problems is because of the sort of people we elect into office. Time and again. Moar democracy is not the answer if we cant get a handle on those we elect.

The House of Lords as an appointed advisory house works, but the determination as to who appouints members should be taken away from the commons because it gets used as a means of tooling the house with yes men, and defeats the object of it being there.

Its is odd that the best de facto custodianship came from people who were born in to the position and therefore didn't have to kiss anyones arse to get there or stay there, and can and would oppose self serving dick moves by elected government officials. Its a realipolitik answer rather than a spun one, and therefore actually worked rather than 'looked right'. That system wasn't ideal, far from it, but it actually worked and kept parliament on the straight and narrow until 1999. Whet we need is a system of appointees that better reflects the society than a coterie of nobles. As fro the nobles and the bishops, they should be allowed to stay as a portion of the whole, they are the people who have done most to keep up the good work. Add a smattering of captains of industry, retired politicians only of the members of the upper house think they deserve it. So no Lord Two Jags thank you. Add to that a large percentage about 30% total of public nominees appointed by independent committee.
All told you would have an upper house worthy of its name and its duty - to keep the lower house in check and balance.

If you just elect them you might as well just have one chamber, as they have the same mandate.

To Kilkrazy, I'll say this: I think the appetite is there amongst the British public for an elected senate, but as always, the problem is Westminster. Trying to get them to surrender power would be like getting blood out of a stone.

To Orlanth, I say this: Fair points about Lords of yesteryear, but no matter how benign they were, or how good they were, an unelected lord making decisions is still bad for democracy.

If it were up to me, I'd keep 5 year terms for MPs, but I would give the small number of senators a 7 year term, so they could take the longer view and work in the national interest, a sort of elder statesman or woman type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Bit late on this but, has anyone else enjoyed the irony of unelected leaders of labour past, telling JC he's unelectable?

I guess it takes one to know one.

It's particularly funny to see Neil Kinnock, a man who once campaigned against the EU, and the house of lords, lecture Corbyn on Labour values.

For those who don't know, Kinnock is now a lord, and used to work for the EU

Who needs principals...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would have been ridiculous for the current leader not to automatically go on the ballot form, in my opinion. The business with the £3 members is slightly different.

It was the £3 members who swept Corbyn into power. The vote to exclude them from the election came after Corbyn and a couple of his supporters had left the meeting, and it was not a scheduled agenda item.

It therefore looks like a bit of a stitch-up.

This of course emphasises how disliked Corbyn is within the party leadership and, more importantly, his lack of skill at political management.

A seasoned operator like Harold Wilson would never have allowed himself to be outmanoeuvred in this way. After getting the vote in his favour he would have lit his pipe, asked if there was any other business, declared the session closed and called for beer and sandwiches to celebrate a job well done. No chances for sneaky voting behind his back.

Could he have declared the session closed? Isn't that the purpose of the chair of the party? Anyhow, Corbyn won his position in 2015 so the people who are getting excluded because they joined up during the last six months will likely not harm him.

Perhaps not, but a smart operator wouldn't have left the room with some of his supporters while the meeting was still in session.

Wilson would look at the agenda, see there is no further business, and propose a vote of thanks to the chairman at the end of the session.

Replace the Lords with an elected Senate is bad juju. Leave them as they are, because Parliament has the power to bypass the lords anyway, (Parlimentary Acts 1911 +1949).


Honestly, how would a senate work? Would it be like the American system? Or would it be two Houses of Parliament? If it is the latter that is a colossal waste of money. What if one house is one party and the other is the other? That is also a bad idea.


I do have to say this about the Scotland issue and the issue of general democracy. Scotland has to accept that it should get less of a political say than London, merely because London has more people than all of Scotland. Unfortunately their opinions matter more than yours.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Replace the Lords with an elected Senate is bad juju. Leave them as they are, because Parliament has the power to bypass the lords anyway, (Parlimentary Acts 1911 +1949).


Honestly, how would a senate work? Would it be like the American system? Or would it be two Houses of Parliament? If it is the latter that is a colossal waste of money. What if one house is one party and the other is the other? That is also a bad idea.

I always thought that the best thing to do would be to have an upper house made up of people with a real stake in the country and expertise. Say, representatives of the Army, Navy & RAF, Doctors, University lecturers & teachers, policemen, judges & firemen, the top ten richest private British citizens, ex-prime ministers, a handful of CEO's from the FTSE 100, a random sample of people on jobseekers, several clergymen representing all the major faiths, all the Mayors from the major cities, people with the highest order of knighthood, and so on. Put them in for five year stints.

The selection process would be a bit of a pain to codify the first time around, as you'd need a different selection process for each type of seat (religious, military, judicial, and so on), but that's the sort of thing I wouldn't mind spending a bit of taxpayer money on. Fill up two or three hundred seats like that, and you'll end up with a really diverse spread of people from all walks of life, all with something invested in this country.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Replace the Lords with an elected Senate is bad juju. Leave them as they are, because Parliament has the power to bypass the lords anyway, (Parlimentary Acts 1911 +1949).


Honestly, how would a senate work? Would it be like the American system? Or would it be two Houses of Parliament? If it is the latter that is a colossal waste of money. What if one house is one party and the other is the other? That is also a bad idea.


I do have to say this about the Scotland issue and the issue of general democracy. Scotland has to accept that it should get less of a political say than London, merely because London has more people than all of Scotland. Unfortunately their opinions matter more than yours.

While I didn't specify it, I assumed that reconfiguring the second chamber would involve a lot of changes to the constitution among which would be changes to the Parliamentary Act.

The purpose of the senate, as in the US system, is that all regions of the country were equally represented in Parliament whatever their actual population.

This would deal with the Scotland situation, which BTW I believe is false anyway. Democracy as practiced in western countries is not about the 50.00000000000000001 per cent of the population being allowed to dictate to the 49.99999999999999999 per cent of people with different views.

I like Ketara's idea too.

 Ketara wrote:

It'll remove all memory of it from the subsequent 20 years worth of matured adults, and assuming no great economic catastrophe on our part and success on the EU's part, where will the political desire to re-run a new entry come from? Especially considering a new entry would be a full subscription to things like the Euro, which many remainers even now do not want.

That's simple. It will come from a desire to be able to make a difference on the global stage. As other nations with larger populations become more industrialised, the small nations will have less say in the global politics. The Country's ability to influence the world in economic and political terms will diminish. By being part of Europe you have the ability to highlight our values on this stage that can then goes forward as the approach of group of nations. Little England will be increasing marginalised as the more economical and political advantages come from working with the bigger nations. The, what will then be, asian power houses will then be able to dominate and trade etc negotiations because we simply couldn't afford to have it fall apart.

 Ketara wrote:
Even if your model were accurate, all it would guarantee is that we'd leave again twenty years subsequent to rejoining because another 20 years worth of people who didn't care for the EU would then become the largest voterbase. Unless you're going to not only predict the economic consequences I just gave, but a societal attitude shift forty years from now?.

That's possible but probably unlikely. The current referendum was won because of an aging population with many having mild to significant bigoted views from a period when education was much poorer than it was today combined with a general dissatisfaction of the political process due to the pain/gain inequalities that the Tory party has wrought through society during a massive economical upheaval. These factors are unlikely to all combine in the future. A significant majority are now educated to a much better standard (a significant fraction to University level) where they daily come into contact with a wide variety of cultures from across the globe. This leads to understanding and empathy as well as friends that means they don't fall victim to the fear of 'aliens' invading the country and ruining it 'for the Brits' which is then inflamed by demagogues with just plainly false and misleading slogans. If anything young people in general are more open to sharing in a wider community than older people because they have lived as part of a global community and they live in hope for the future not fear it.

 Ketara wrote:
Which is? Visa free travel in Europe? Being able to export to Europe with one less bit of paperwork? Another academic grant body to apply to? Beyond vague things like 'European unity', there's precious little in the way of hard obviously visible benefits enjoyed by the majority of the populace. And I'm really doubting that should things go alright, those things would be sufficient to impact upon opinion twenty five years hence. Things will be decided by the issues of the day and recent memory when that time comes.

So lets see, Visa free work for anyone anywhere in Europe, whether that is a Teacher, Doctor, Skiing Instructor whereas future work visa's will likely be restricted in someway (unless the door swings both ways)
Just general access to wider and broader work areas (say for example they wanted to work in a field that was mainly based in Germany)
Access to Small Business grants to start up their own business
Funding for their education in other countries (like Erasmus)
Grants to get them involved in society
Just look here for more information:- http://ec.europa.eu/youth/index_en.htm
And that's not taking into account things like European Regional Development Fund that, for example, put more than £0.5billion into regenerating Hull to make it a more vibrant environment that all can enjoy and will provide better prospects for the younger people of that city.

 Ketara wrote:
See, I'm afraid this is where I stop taking you seriously. This is literally the classical whiggish view of society, where everything is always ascending to some new culturally superior civilisation, that we are only now just reaching the pinnacle of. Every single generation before you has said exactly the same thing in the name of 'progress', but I'm pretty sure what you and a 19th century colonialist would view as 'progressive' are quite substantially different. In another 50 years time, it'll be different again.

I never said we were ascending to a culturally superior community, the rampant excessive capitalism could quite well be a big downfall for society. I'm more of the opinion that you can be progressive and hopefully change things for the better by being in the thick of things like being in the growing global entities (EU for us) that are forming or you can be regressive with the vision 'that it wasn't like this in my day' so lets go back to it even if it doesn't fit modern society very well. All it means that you will be dragged along in the current while desperately trying to swim backwards only to realise that you've been dragged there anyway and exhausted yourself by doing it. And realistically we are in a better society than we were 200 hundred, even 30 years ago. Technology, medical care, the economy, welfare are all superior than they were and we have got to here by people thinking progressively and how to make things better. Yes sometimes there are mistakes but we are definitely better off now than we were.

Dear God, Boris just made Foreign Secretary. I knew she'd have to give him a good portfolio, but I was hoping she'd feed him the Home Secretary position to choke on.

Hammond is Chancellor, and Osoborne's been given the boot. Looks like his sudden brownnosing didn't save him.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Replace the Lords with an elected Senate is bad juju. Leave them as they are, because Parliament has the power to bypass the lords anyway, (Parlimentary Acts 1911 +1949).


Honestly, how would a senate work? Would it be like the American system? Or would it be two Houses of Parliament? If it is the latter that is a colossal waste of money. What if one house is one party and the other is the other? That is also a bad idea.


I do have to say this about the Scotland issue and the issue of general democracy. Scotland has to accept that it should get less of a political say than London, merely because London has more people than all of Scotland. Unfortunately their opinions matter more than yours.

While I didn't specify it, I assumed that reconfiguring the second chamber would involve a lot of changes to the constitution among which would be changes to the Parliamentary Act.

The purpose of the senate, as in the US system, is that all regions of the country were equally represented in Parliament whatever their actual population.

This would deal with the Scotland situation, which BTW I believe is false anyway. Democracy as practiced in western countries is not about the 50.00000000000000001 per cent of the population being allowed to dictate to the 49.99999999999999999 per cent of people with different views.

I like Ketara's idea too.

Actually... prior to the 17th amendment, the US Senate was originally elected by the State's legislature, rather than the people directly electing each Senators.

Therefore, the states governance had a certain degree of representation in the General Government. The General Government would derive authority from the citizens of the United States and the states to wield power over certain objects that affected the nation as a whole. State governments would continue to derive authority from their respective citizens to wield power over objects enumerated in their state's constitutions. At the time, it was felt that state representation in the national government would act as a check against any usurpation of state power by the General Government.

Since the passage of the 17th amendment... states rights and the ideals of the 10th Amendment went to the gaks.

So I'd argue that it's your regional government (however it's constructed) elects an equal # of senators to the office. If you'd rather the people to directly vote in the Senators... I'm not sure the outcomes would be any different than your existing Westminster system.

 Ketara wrote:
Dear God, Boris just made Foreign Secretary. I knew she'd have to give him a good portfolio, but I was hoping she'd feed him the Home Secretary position to choke on.

Hammond is Chancellor, and Osoborne's been given the boot. Looks like his sudden brownnosing didn't save him.

Well, Shocked at BoJo. Maybe he will choke on it since he'll be involved in Article 50 and all that entails going forwards.

Whirlwind wrote:

That's simple. It will come from a desire to be able to make a difference on the global stage.

Like Norway? I'm not sure your Joe Bloggs in the street really cares about 'making a difference on the global stage', we leave that sort of thing to posturing politicians.

As other nations with larger populations become more industrialised, the small nations will have less say in the global politics. The Country's ability to influence the world in economic and political terms will diminish.

Industrialisation does not equate to influence in global politics. And even if it did, so what? You don't see people in Switzerland right saying, 'Oh Golly Gosh, I belong to an insignificant nation, I'd better bind my country to ever closer union with Germany so that my people can have more influence!' Quite the opposite, by contemporary events.

By being part of Europe you have the ability to highlight our values on this stage that can then goes forward as the approach of group of nations. Little England will be increasing marginalised as the more economical and political advantages come from working with the bigger nations. The, what will then be, asian power houses will then be able to dominate and trade etc negotiations because we simply couldn't afford to have it fall apart.

We're projected to have the biggest economy in Europe within fifty years, and our population to overtake both Germany and Russia. I'm not quite feeling the narrative of decline you're feeding me here. Sure, we might not be a superpower, but we aren't exactly going to be Madagascar in twenty years, no matter how you spin it.

That's possible but probably unlikely. The current referendum was won because of an aging population with many having mild to significant bigoted views from a period when education was much poorer than it was today combined with a general dissatisfaction of the political process due to the pain/gain inequalities that the Tory party has wrought through society during a massive economical upheaval.

Firstly, people who aren't bigoted voted out, myself among them. Secondly, I'd agree that whilst less people were educated in the 1950's, the overall general quality of education since has not gone up, if anything, it's been the opposite. Finally, the Labour party had something to do with it.

These factors are unlikely to all combine in the future. A significant majority are now educated to a much better standard (a significant fraction to University level) where they daily come into contact with a wide variety of cultures from across the globe. This leads to understanding and empathy as well as friends that means they don't fall victim to the fear of 'aliens' invading the country and ruining it 'for the Brits' which is then inflamed by demagogues with just plainly false and misleading slogans. If anything young people in general are more open to sharing in a wider community than older people because they have lived as part of a global community and they live in hope for the future not fear it.

This is all pure speculation, and frankly, I would postulate, imaginary.

So lets see, Visa free work for anyone anywhere in Europe

So yep, like I said, Visa free travel.

Access to Small Business grants to start up their own business

Those are commercial loans guaranteed by the British Government, nothing to do with the EU if you're talking about t he standard start-up loans.

Funding for their education in other countries (like Erasmus)
Grants to get them involved in society

So like I said, another grant agency.

And that's not taking into account things like European Regional Development Fund that, for example, put more than £0.5billion into regenerating Hull to make it a more vibrant environment that all can enjoy and will provide better prospects for the younger people of that city.

I specified hard obvious visible benefits. Your average bloke walking down a street in Hull doesn't tend to clock that the local hall got repainted or a new art gallery opened and think 'What a great organisation the EU, funding all this for us!'.

I never said we were ascending to a culturally superior community, the rampant excessive capitalism could quite well be a big downfall for society. I'm more of the opinion that you can be progressive and hopefully change things for the better by being in the thick of things like being in the growing global entities (EU for us) that are formingor you can be regressive with the vision 'that it wasn't like this in my day' so lets go back to it even if it doesn't fit modern society very well All it means that you will be dragged along in the current while desperately trying to swim backwards only to realise that you've been dragged there anyway and exhausted yourself by doing it. And realistically we are in a better society than we were 200 hundred, even 30 years ago. Technology, medical care, the economy, welfare are all superior than they were and we have got to here by people thinking progressively and how to make things better. Yes sometimes there are mistakes but we are definitely better off now than we were.

You're conflating a lot of things there. Firstly the development of scientific method has nothing whatsoever to do with forms of government. Secondly, saying that 'we are in a better society than we were 200 hundred, even 30 years ago' is inherently incorrect, because there is no objective measurement for a society, it varies by culture and moral standards of the day. You may well find in two hundred years that they view your 'better' society as having been a retrogressive step.

Finally, you still haven't shown why merging nation-states into superstates is 'progressive' and maintaining the existing model of nation state is 'regressive'. You're simply throwing out a massively loaded deterministic, whiggish, and western view of the world and history.

 Ketara wrote:
Dear God, Boris just made Foreign Secretary. I knew she'd have to give him a good portfolio, but I was hoping she'd feed him the Home Secretary position to choke on.

Hammond is Chancellor, and Osoborne's been given the boot. Looks like his sudden brownnosing didn't save him.

The problem with Hammond though is that he does like to cut public spending and there is no way to do that without hitting those already on the lower payscales. This doesn't point to a more inclusive society May was talking about.

As for Boris well, it could be punishment as well. He quit out of leading the Brexit because he knew how toxic the whole mess was and May has now given him back that role. Either he leaves and 50% of the population hates him for it or he (in the end) decides it is better to remain publicly and again 50% of the population hate him for it. In essence May might be hitting Boris's chance of going for PM in 4 years time.

 Ketara wrote:
Dear God, Boris just made Foreign Secretary. I knew she'd have to give him a good portfolio, but I was hoping she'd feed him the Home Secretary position to choke on.

That's ah...interesting. I'm not sure how effective he will be in that role if all the big nearby nations that are major trading partners are particularly miffed at him.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Scotland has to accept that it should get less of a political say than London, merely because London has more people than all of Scotland.

As it stands now in matters beyond the purview of the Scottish parliament its all down to pure numbers so by that measure it is democratic. Given that Scotland is a nation in its own right, and whose population are seeing themselves less and less as 'British', the current situation is increasingly unpalatable. That's why you get calls for such things as an exemption from Brexit or even for a federal UK although in reality these things will never work (or rather be allowed to work).

A growing proportion of Scotland's population will not accept that it has "less political say" than London and having their political will routinely ignored. It may be 'democratic' in the current sense but it is also why the union is in grave danger.

Amber Rudd is the new home secretary, someone who hasn't really crossed my radar before. Looking into her background, she seems to have been one of May's attack dogs previously in chasing up FGM and to have carefully worked her way up in junior ministerial positions. She'll have her work cut out for her taking over the Home Office from May. One to keep an eye on, I think.

Fallon is being kept on. Pretty generic Tory from what I recall of him, never done anything exceptionally interesting or bad. Not aligned with the public schoolboy group so much, he didn't go to Eton, or Oxford/Cambridge.

David Davis leaving Downing Street now, which is veeery interesting. He got sidelined quite some time ago, so he'd be an interesting one to see back in the political game. It seem May is really stirring things up in the Tory party, she's muscling out a lot of Cameron's crew. I'm noting that Gove is nowhere in sight right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Dear God, Boris just made Foreign Secretary. I knew she'd have to give him a good portfolio, but I was hoping she'd feed him the Home Secretary position to choke on.

That's ah...interesting. I'm not sure how effective he will be in that role if all the big nearby nations that are major trading partners are particularly miffed at him.

It's just been announced David Davis is the effective Minister for Brexit, so Johnson will have nothing whatsoever to do with it. He's a reasonably good 'un that Davis, so good move there. He was Cameron's rival back in the day, and has championed opposition to lots of things I dislike. He's a grammar school working class origin bloke, Jewish mother, ex Territorial Army, University of Warwick & London Business School alumni. Kicked up lots of stinks over torture & civil liberties. May might find she bites off more than she can chew with him when it comes to her surveillance bills.

David Davis! Finally, one of the few MPs I like and respect.

Always wanted him for Prime Minister, not Cameron.

And Frank Field in Labour would be my preference for Work and Pensions/Welfare Secretary.

With May as Prime Minister and Hammond as Chancellor, I was really hoping Clarkson would get Foreign Secretary

 welshhoppo wrote:
With May as Prime Minister and Hammond as Chancellor, I was really hoping Clarkson would get Foreign Secretary

Oh Snap!

Glad David Davis got on the radar.