[cite]Posted By: se9addick[/cite]The Scottish Parliament has powers devolved to it from the British (English) Parliament, however there are still many powers, which are known as reserved matters, such as immigration, foreign policy etc which are decided upon solely in Westminster. That means the tory-inspired fallacy of Scottish MP’s voting on English matters is actually the wrong way round. The most important matters (non-devolved) are decided on as explained, in Westmister, therefore the vast majority of MP’s deciding on these issues are English, indeed, hypothetically even if all the Scottish MP’s voted against a proposed war (as with Iraq) then their vote would mean nothing if even a small majority of English MP’s agreed it.
So who has the power really ?
Also the non-reserved matters (those which the Westminster Parliament deem Wales, Scotland and Ireland to be sufficiently intelligent enough to decide for themselves) which are decided upon in Westminster affect only England (and often Wales due to their status as a Principality, not a country) therefore the English already have their Parliament for domestic matters. Quite how setting up another level of buerocracy – such as an “English” Parliament, with all the dodgy elected peers and red tape that goes with this would benefit England in anyway seems a mystery.
The SNP will destroy Scotland if they ever had their chance, luckily I don't think they will.
Who has the power really ? The EU on 75% plus of matters.
Regarding devolution what about the West Lothian question? That is Scottish MPs deciding what happened in in England but English MPs being unable to influence the Scottish Parliament.
One could argue that this is important because England alone actually had a Tory majority in the last General Election but Scottish and Welsh seats turned it to a Labour one.
If we pulled out of the EU and joined (say) NAFTA, then he would have been welcomed with open arms.
We can deal with the rest of the World without our hands tied behind our back.
........
So you want to leave the EU because we have to deal with the ROW with one hand tied behind our back...yet you want to join NAFTA, no contradiction there...
The UK does more business with the rest of Europe than it does with the NAFTA nations, so joining that treaty organisation doesn't make any economic sense, at least we'll speak the same language as the Yanks and Canadians though (well some of them).
In the next few decades you'll see several large treaty organisations dominating world trade - NAFTA for the American nations, the EU for Europe and SEATO in Asia etc. We either join the EU adopt the Euro and surrender some sovereignty as part of the wider access to bigger export markets, or stay stuck in a corner of Europe and be marginalised.
...."The EU needs reforming and more transparency - UKIP should concentrate on getting us a better deal rather than in campaigning for total withdrawal.".....
In an ideal world I'd possibly agree with that. Unfortunately Acquis Communautaire which runs through all EU treaties prevents that ever being likely. In simple terms (for those who may not know BFR will know) once a competence is surrendered to the Community (EU) that is where it stays.
[cite]Posted By: se9addick[/cite]The Scottish Parliament has powers devolved to it from the British (English) Parliament, however there are still many powers, which are known as reserved matters, such as immigration, foreign policy etc which are decided upon solely in Westminster. That means the tory-inspired fallacy of Scottish MP’s voting on English matters is actually the wrong way round. The most important matters (non-devolved) are decided on as explained, in Westmister, therefore the vast majority of MP’s deciding on these issues are English, indeed, hypothetically even if all the Scottish MP’s voted against a proposed war (as with Iraq) then their vote would mean nothing if even a small majority of English MP’s agreed it.
So who has the power really ?
Also the non-reserved matters (those which the Westminster Parliament deem Wales, Scotland and Ireland to be sufficiently intelligent enough to decide for themselves) which are decided upon in Westminster affect only England (and often Wales due to their status as a Principality, not a country) therefore the English already have their Parliament for domestic matters. Quite how setting up another level of buerocracy – such as an “English” Parliament, with all the dodgy elected peers and red tape that goes with this would benefit England in anyway seems a mystery.
The SNP will destroy Scotland if they ever had their chance, luckily I don't think they will.
Who has the power really ? The EU on 75% plus of matters.
Regarding devolution what about the West Lothian question? That is Scottish MPs deciding what happened in in England but English MPs being unable to influence the Scottish Parliament.
One could argue that this is important because England alone actually had a Tory majority in the last General Election but Scottish and Welsh seats turned it to a Labour one.
The West Lothian question is a different question. For a start, MP’s don’t vote along national lines, they vote along party lines (generally) so a Labour MP in Scotland will vote the same as a Labour MP from England. Also, as explained before the vast number of English MP’s in comparison to those from other countries of the UK means that any government with a majority in England would be able to pass any law they pleased, even those on non devolved issues that would directly affect the Scots, even if it was against the will of every single Scottish MP, man, woman and child.
[cite]Posted By: se9addick[/cite]The Scottish Parliament has powers devolved to it from the British (English) Parliament, however there are still many powers, which are known as reserved matters, such as immigration, foreign policy etc which are decided upon solely in Westminster. That means the tory-inspired fallacy of Scottish MP’s voting on English matters is actually the wrong way round. The most important matters (non-devolved) are decided on as explained, in Westmister, therefore the vast majority of MP’s deciding on these issues are English, indeed, hypothetically even if all the Scottish MP’s voted against a proposed war (as with Iraq) then their vote would mean nothing if even a small majority of English MP’s agreed it.
So who has the power really ?
Also the non-reserved matters (those which the Westminster Parliament deem Wales, Scotland and Ireland to be sufficiently intelligent enough to decide for themselves) which are decided upon in Westminster affect only England (and often Wales due to their status as a Principality, not a country) therefore the English already have their Parliament for domestic matters. Quite how setting up another level of buerocracy – such as an “English” Parliament, with all the dodgy elected peers and red tape that goes with this would benefit England in anyway seems a mystery.
The SNP will destroy Scotland if they ever had their chance, luckily I don't think they will.
Who has the power really ? The EU on 75% plus of matters.
Regarding devolution what about the West Lothian question? That is Scottish MPs deciding what happened in in England but English MPs being unable to influence the Scottish Parliament.
One could argue that this is important because England alone actually had a Tory majority in the last General Election but Scottish and Welsh seats turned it to a Labour one.
The West Lothian question is a different question. For a start, MP’s don’t vote along national lines, they vote along party lines (generally) so a Labour MP in Scotland will vote the same as a Labour MP from England. Also, as explained before the vast number of English MP’s in comparison to those from other countries of the UK means that any government with a majority in England would be able to pass any law they pleased, even those on non devolved issues that would directly affect the Scots, even if it was against the will of every single Scottish MP, man, woman and child.
The Tories had a majority in England at the 2005 General Election yet cannot pass any law they please because Scottish and Welsh seats have transformed that Tory majority to a Labour one.
I should say that on balance I favour the UK remaining as the UK but Goonerhater and others do have a valid point that England is discriminated against as I've attempted to explain.
...."The EU needs reforming and more transparency - UKIP should concentrate on getting us a better deal rather than in campaigning for total withdrawal.".....
In an ideal world I'd possibly agree with that. Unfortunately Acquis Communitaire which runs through all EU treaties prevents that ever being likely. In simple terms (for those who may not know BFR will know) once a competence is surrendered to the Community (EU) that is where it stays.
No, "acquis communautaire" refers to the entire body of EU law (as well as treaties etc) and also therefore to the powers acquired by the community. That does not mean that once decision making disappears into Europe it will remain there hidden from oversight or transparency though too often that has been the consequence, hence I'm in favour of our being members of the EU and having the decision making process (and costs etc) open to scrutiny. Again UKIP should be about getting the best deal in Europe and not extracting ourselves from the EU.
MPs as well as being party members are also representing their constituents. There is no reason at all for Scottish welsh or NI politicians to vote on devolved issues that have nothing to do with their constituents, why should they be allowed to support continued prescription charges in England whilst the Scots welsh can pay for free prescriptions or uni fees using English money that help their constituents. They should either not be allowed to vote on such issues or the number of MPs they have at parliament should be reduced accordingly. The number of MPs should be reduced anyway, but that is an entirely separate discussion.
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite] So get the voting slip, match the number to the 'stub', see who the stub refers to....presumably this way they can get people who vote twice...but a secret ballot it is not.
The ballot paper stubs are kept under lock and key. Should there be a dispute serious enough for the electoral Commission ask for a court Order, then the stubs can be looked into and cross referenced.
It's never happened yet.
After the announced and verified result the stubs are destroyed.
[cite]Posted By: ThreadKiller[/cite]that once decision making disappears into Europe it will remain there hidden from oversight or transparency though too often that has been the
No not really, I think that the balance is just about right at the moment. There are still a few things which could be devolved to Scotland, but in general things like going to War etc can only really be decided at a UK level (since we have a British army) without things getting really messy. Wales on the other hand have hardly any powers whatsoever which seems wrong, surely they should be afforded the same rights as the Scots or is this negated by the fact that their country is propped up almost completely by English subsidies with very little in return (as per Scottish oil etc).
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]
[cite]Posted By: se9addick[/cite]
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]
[cite]Posted By: se9addick[/cite]
The Tories had a majority in England at the 2005 General Election yet cannot pass any law they please because Scottish and Welsh seats have transformed that Tory majority to a Labour one.
I should say that on balance I favour the UK remaining as the UK but Goonerhater and others do have a valid point that England is discriminated against as I've attempted to explain.
Perhaps one ammendment they could make would be to preclude Scottish MP's voting in Westmister on devolved matters, but again it would be hard to draw the line, but it could probably be done. It just seems madness to set up a whole new Parliament over this matter. Aren't there plans to set up regional assemblies in England or have these been shelved ?
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]So being in the EU was of no help to your friend.
If we pulled out of the EU and joined (say) NAFTA, then he would have been welcomed with open arms.
We can deal with the rest of the World without our hands tied behind our back.
........
So you want to leave the EU because we have to deal with the ROW with one hand tied behind our back...yet you want to join NAFTA, no contradiction there...
The UK does more business with the rest of Europe than it does with the NAFTA nations, so joining that treaty organisation doesn't make any economic sense, at least we'll speak the same language as the Yanks and Canadians though (well some of them).
In the next few decades you'll see several large treaty organisations dominating world trade - NAFTA for the American nations, the EU for Europe and SEATO in Asia etc. We either join the EU adopt the Euro and surrender some sovereignty as part of the wider access to bigger export markets, or stay stuck in a corner of Europe and be marginalised.
I'm not sure I want to be in any trading organisation - that's what I'm saying.
Put up the pros and cons on EU membership and then let me decide.
What I don't understand is the fact people go on and on about our export markets, when we're a net importer.
There are plenty of 'marginalised' countries that have been successful over many years.
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]you know we're supposed to have a secret ballot, and I realise that people are only supposed to vote once and stuff....but when you go to the polling station, they tear off the voting sheet, which has a number that is also on the voting sheet 'stub'. On the stub they record your details (a voter number or something), so if they wanted to they could trace who you voted for.
It would be a mammoth task for the parties that get loads of votes, but if, say, 400 people voted for the Monster Raving Loonies, you could keep that pile of votes, and trace the 400 relatively quickly to find out who voted looney (or BNP, or Extreme left/right or whatever), it may even be a quick process with a computer what with laser reading technology or whatever. So get the voting slip, match the number to the 'stub', see who the stub refers to....presumably this way they can get people who vote twice...but a secret ballot it is not.
I yep your right. Or so I was told once, it was done this way so the goverment could locate communists and other extremists. Dont know if it is actually true but Its nice for those in power to be able to keep tabs on all you Monster loonies.
Devolution is essentially an EU devised scheme called Government of the Regions. Hence the abolition of England and division into the Regional Assemblies you refer to.
Prescott tried to market it as giving Regions more power and picked a Labour stronghold, the North East, to introduce it. However the people weren't having any thanks in part to UKIP and others who explained the true motives behind it. For the moment Reginal Assemblies are laying dormant but will no doubt rise again. The EU has a habit of making people vote again and again when they don't give the "right" answer first time. EG Ireland and Lisbon.
'The ballot paper stubs are kept under lock and key. Should there be a dispute serious enough for the electoral Commission ask for a court Order, then the stubs can be looked into and cross referenced.
It's never happened yet.
After the announced and verified result the stubs are destroyed.'
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]So being in the EU was of no help to your friend.
If we pulled out of the EU and joined (say) NAFTA, then he would have been welcomed with open arms.
We can deal with the rest of the World without our hands tied behind our back.
........
So you want to leave the EU because we have to deal with the ROW with one hand tied behind our back...yet you want to join NAFTA, no contradiction there...
The UK does more business with the rest of Europe than it does with the NAFTA nations, so joining that treaty organisation doesn't make any economic sense, at least we'll speak the same language as the Yanks and Canadians though (well some of them).
In the next few decades you'll see several large treaty organisations dominating world trade - NAFTA for the American nations, the EU for Europe and SEATO in Asia etc. We either join the EU adopt the Euro and surrender some sovereignty as part of the wider access to bigger export markets, or stay stuck in a corner of Europe and be marginalised.
I'm not sure I want to be in any trading organisation - that's what I'm saying.
Put up the pros and cons on EU membership and then let me decide.
What I don't understand is the fact people go on and on about our export markets, when we're a net importer.
There are plenty of 'marginalised' countries that have been successful over many years.
Marginalised countries only do well when they have something on offer that everyone wants - eg Switzerland and very liberal banking laws, take those away and they have nothing but cuckoo clocks and watch making. Similarly HK and Singapore do well as gateways to Asia.
You can make up your mind on wther you want to be apart of the EU or any trading organisation as you like - there are plenty of websites out there from both sides extolling the virtues of membership or isolationism. As I say above the EU is not perfect and I'd rather not surrender sovereignty but if we have to I'd rather we did so as full partners with a role in decision making. At stake is access to a large trading community and further afield as globalisation continues that gives us access to international markets.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]So being in the EU was of no help to your friend.
If we pulled out of the EU and joined (say) NAFTA, then he would have been welcomed with open arms.
We can deal with the rest of the World without our hands tied behind our back.
........
So you want to leave the EU because we have to deal with the ROW with one hand tied behind our back...yet you want to join NAFTA, no contradiction there...
The UK does more business with the rest of Europe than it does with the NAFTA nations, so joining that treaty organisation doesn't make any economic sense, at least we'll speak the same language as the Yanks and Canadians though (well some of them).
In the next few decades you'll see several large treaty organisations dominating world trade - NAFTA for the American nations, the EU for Europe and SEATO in Asia etc. We either join the EU adopt the Euro and surrender some sovereignty as part of the wider access to bigger export markets, or stay stuck in a corner of Europe and be marginalised.
I'm not sure I want to be in any trading organisation - that's what I'm saying.
Put up the pros and cons on EU membership and then let me decide.
What I don't understand is the fact people go on and on about our export markets, when we're a net importer.
There are plenty of 'marginalised' countries that have been successful over many years.
Marginalised countries only do well when they have something on offer that everyone wants - eg Switzerland and very liberal banking laws, take those away and they have nothing but cuckoo clocks and watch making. Similarly HK and Singapore do well as gateways to Asia.
You can make up your mind on wther you want to be apart of the EU or any trading organisation as you like - there are plenty of websites out there from both sides extolling the virtues of membership or isolationism. As I say above the EU is not perfect and I'd rather not surrender sovereignty but if we have to I'd rather we did so as full partners with a role in decision making. At stake is access to a large trading community and further afield as globalisation continues that gives us access to international markets.
One thing we can agree on I think is a need for intellectual honesty which the Tories in particular do not offer.
As you say we should be either wholly in or wholly out BUT the people should decide.
'The ballot paper stubs are kept under lock and key. Should there be a dispute serious enough for the electoral Commission ask for a court Order, then the stubs can be looked into and cross referenced.
It's never happened yet.
After the announced and verified result the stubs are destroyed.'
I thought they were kept for a year.
Many's the argument I've had with a voter on days like this past when I was a PO and had a stroppy punter coming up with the "it's not a secret" bit. I think you're right in it being a year but your current PO should be able to tell you, walk across the hall and ask them!
[cite]Posted By: Imissthepeanutman[/cite]I quite like Switzerland and the sound of liberal banking laws.
They're liberal with big investors, not big overdrafts :-)
I am sure the Swiss as experienced bankers can make nice profits out of both. Actually that is the definition of banking. I got a free cuckoo clock with my overdraft and ten minutes with Martina Hingis.
Anyway the minute Abbey goes fully Spanish I am repatriating my funds to.........Bradford!!! or Skelmersdale or god knows.
But back to the serious politics we must have a full debate on this.
They'll take your money - no questions asked. It doesn't matter if you made it selling the organs of cute little toddlers and had to kill them to do it. They don't give a toss. Thus, dictators,corrupt government officials, mafia men and genocidal maniacs the world over are always gauranteed a warm welcom by our Swiss chums.
Let me look after that for you Mr Mugabe...
Nuke Switzerland and make the world a better place.
Neutral, my arse. War is great business for Swiss bankers - read up about the holocaust and Nazi gold. If you want peace in the world we need a little war and Switzerland should be first on the list.
what about those swiss army knives with loads of gadgets, with kit like that they would win any war, and they have a particle collision thingy too, they might fight with that thing, I say get Tom Cruise to nick all the money but otherwise leave them alone.
Comments
Who has the power really ? The EU on 75% plus of matters.
Regarding devolution what about the West Lothian question? That is Scottish MPs deciding what happened in in England but English MPs being unable to influence the Scottish Parliament.
One could argue that this is important because England alone actually had a Tory majority in the last General Election but Scottish and Welsh seats turned it to a Labour one.
If we pulled out of the EU and joined (say) NAFTA, then he would have been welcomed with open arms.
We can deal with the rest of the World without our hands tied behind our back.
........
So you want to leave the EU because we have to deal with the ROW with one hand tied behind our back...yet you want to join NAFTA, no contradiction there...
The UK does more business with the rest of Europe than it does with the NAFTA nations, so joining that treaty organisation doesn't make any economic sense, at least we'll speak the same language as the Yanks and Canadians though (well some of them).
In the next few decades you'll see several large treaty organisations dominating world trade - NAFTA for the American nations, the EU for Europe and SEATO in Asia etc. We either join the EU adopt the Euro and surrender some sovereignty as part of the wider access to bigger export markets, or stay stuck in a corner of Europe and be marginalised.
...."The EU needs reforming and more transparency - UKIP should concentrate on getting us a better deal rather than in campaigning for total withdrawal.".....
In an ideal world I'd possibly agree with that. Unfortunately Acquis Communautaire which runs through all EU treaties prevents that ever being likely. In simple terms (for those who may not know BFR will know) once a competence is surrendered to the Community (EU) that is where it stays.
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/how_does_a_country_join_the_eu/negotiations_croatia_turkey/index_en.htm
The West Lothian question is a different question. For a start, MP’s don’t vote along national lines, they vote along party lines (generally) so a Labour MP in Scotland will vote the same as a Labour MP from England. Also, as explained before the vast number of English MP’s in comparison to those from other countries of the UK means that any government with a majority in England would be able to pass any law they pleased, even those on non devolved issues that would directly affect the Scots, even if it was against the will of every single Scottish MP, man, woman and child.
The Tories had a majority in England at the 2005 General Election yet cannot pass any law they please because Scottish and Welsh seats have transformed that Tory majority to a Labour one.
I should say that on balance I favour the UK remaining as the UK but Goonerhater and others do have a valid point that England is discriminated against as I've attempted to explain.
No, "acquis communautaire" refers to the entire body of EU law (as well as treaties etc) and also therefore to the powers acquired by the community. That does not mean that once decision making disappears into Europe it will remain there hidden from oversight or transparency though too often that has been the consequence, hence I'm in favour of our being members of the EU and having the decision making process (and costs etc) open to scrutiny. Again UKIP should be about getting the best deal in Europe and not extracting ourselves from the EU.
The ballot paper stubs are kept under lock and key. Should there be a dispute serious enough for the electoral Commission ask for a court Order, then the stubs can be looked into and cross referenced.
It's never happened yet.
After the announced and verified result the stubs are destroyed.
No not really, I think that the balance is just about right at the moment. There are still a few things which could be devolved to Scotland, but in general things like going to War etc can only really be decided at a UK level (since we have a British army) without things getting really messy. Wales on the other hand have hardly any powers whatsoever which seems wrong, surely they should be afforded the same rights as the Scots or is this negated by the fact that their country is propped up almost completely by English subsidies with very little in return (as per Scottish oil etc).
I'm not sure I want to be in any trading organisation - that's what I'm saying.
Put up the pros and cons on EU membership and then let me decide.
What I don't understand is the fact people go on and on about our export markets, when we're a net importer.
There are plenty of 'marginalised' countries that have been successful over many years.
I yep your right. Or so I was told once, it was done this way so the goverment could locate communists and other extremists. Dont know if it is actually true but Its nice for those in power to be able to keep tabs on all you Monster loonies.
Prescott tried to market it as giving Regions more power and picked a Labour stronghold, the North East, to introduce it. However the people weren't having any thanks in part to UKIP and others who explained the true motives behind it. For the moment Reginal Assemblies are laying dormant but will no doubt rise again. The EU has a habit of making people vote again and again when they don't give the "right" answer first time. EG Ireland and Lisbon.
'The ballot paper stubs are kept under lock and key. Should there be a dispute serious enough for the electoral Commission ask for a court Order, then the stubs can be looked into and cross referenced.
It's never happened yet.
After the announced and verified result the stubs are destroyed.'
I thought they were kept for a year.
Marginalised countries only do well when they have something on offer that everyone wants - eg Switzerland and very liberal banking laws, take those away and they have nothing but cuckoo clocks and watch making. Similarly HK and Singapore do well as gateways to Asia.
You can make up your mind on wther you want to be apart of the EU or any trading organisation as you like - there are plenty of websites out there from both sides extolling the virtues of membership or isolationism. As I say above the EU is not perfect and I'd rather not surrender sovereignty but if we have to I'd rather we did so as full partners with a role in decision making. At stake is access to a large trading community and further afield as globalisation continues that gives us access to international markets.
One thing we can agree on I think is a need for intellectual honesty which the Tories in particular do not offer.
As you say we should be either wholly in or wholly out BUT the people should decide.
Many's the argument I've had with a voter on days like this past when I was a PO and had a stroppy punter coming up with the "it's not a secret" bit. I think you're right in it being a year but your current PO should be able to tell you, walk across the hall and ask them!
They're liberal with big investors, not big overdrafts :-)
Can you hear the Germans sing?
Especially for Addickted but just because it's always good to see Ingrid again
I am sure the Swiss as experienced bankers can make nice profits out of both. Actually that is the definition of banking. I got a free cuckoo clock with my overdraft and ten minutes with Martina Hingis.
Anyway the minute Abbey goes fully Spanish I am repatriating my funds to.........Bradford!!! or Skelmersdale or god knows.
But back to the serious politics we must have a full debate on this.
They'll take your money - no questions asked. It doesn't matter if you made it selling the organs of cute little toddlers and had to kill them to do it. They don't give a toss. Thus, dictators,corrupt government officials, mafia men and genocidal maniacs the world over are always gauranteed a warm welcom by our Swiss chums.
Let me look after that for you Mr Mugabe...
Nuke Switzerland and make the world a better place.
Neutral, my arse. War is great business for Swiss bankers - read up about the holocaust and Nazi gold. If you want peace in the world we need a little war and Switzerland should be first on the list.
Let's nuke the cuckoo clock c***s.
But stealing their cash first is a good idea. Let's nuke them after Cruise has stolen their lolly.
Off to the polling station right now!
ANY PARTY EXCEPT THE SCUM=BNP.
Didn't realise they had one of those, Seth.
Let's put the wrong time on all their cuckoo clocks and steal all the holes in their cheese then.
That'll learn them to promote poverty, starvation and death in the third world.