[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2016-June-03, 15:01, said:

Let me ask this: in a true democracy, to what factions does the government respond with policy?

Habitually, the only one that will accept their policies, ie the public. Everything else is revenue "distribution".

Rule, by, of and for the people ideally includes the respect and protection of individual rights. This is co-opted by the influence of special interests that are involved in benefiting from the revenue "distribution" mentioned above. It all comes back to producing wealth which can then be harvested and distributed to ...

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2016-June-03, 15:01, said:

Let me ask this: in a true democracy, to what factions does the government respond with policy?

None, it implements the policy in its manifesto that it was elected to do, and responds to events how it sees fit.

[Al_U_Card]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-03, 17:32, said:

None, it implements the policy in its manifesto that it was elected to do, and responds to events how it sees fit.

That would imply that it keeps its election promises and that, is the exception rather than the rule.

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-03, 17:32, said:

None, it implements the policy in its manifesto that it was elected to do, and responds to events how it sees fit.

You view the ruling body as did Madison, then, an upper echelon, or tiered society with rulers and the ruled. In true democracy, policy reflects the will of the masses.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2016-June-03, 19:27, said:

You view the ruling body as did Madison, then, an upper echelon, or tiered society with rulers and the ruled. In true democracy, policy reflects the will of the masses.

Which it does. If the masses didn't want it, they wouldn't have elected the government they did, they had the option to stand if they didn't like any of the other options.

[onoway]

If I had a vote, which I don't, I'd be voting to leave as the bigger the government, the less accountable it is.Governments already are becoming a sort of expensive game where politicians - with a very few exceptions- pretend they give a rats' ass about anything that their constituents want, until they're elected. At that point they settle in to make themselves as comfortable as possible by cooperating with lobbyists who have access to the politicians that ordinary citizens can only fantasize about. The only government which has a sniff at being accountable is a small government and that's the least likely to be found anywhere anymore.

Just what is it that can be done as a member of the EU that can't be done otherwise? There've been trade deals since time immemorial, people didn't need to be in the same group to trade.If they do belong to the same group, then of necessity there will be rules about who can do what , where, and this is beginning to sound more and more like an ant colony rather than a diverse, vibrant, innovative and exciting collection of human " tribes". People who study such things as human history tell us that's what humans gravitate towards, and that those tribes are limited in size.

It is interesting that it seems the idea of cooperation is unthinkable unless it is codified and legalized and that won't stand up over time, it never has before so no reason to think it will now. People have broken signed agreements before, and they undoubtedly will again, so what exactly is all this serving except to try to concentrate power in an ever smaller, ever less approachable and ever less accountable group of people?

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-04, 00:26, said:

Which it does. If the masses didn't want it, they wouldn't have elected the government they did, they had the option to stand if they didn't like any of the other options.

What you are describing is a representative democracy whereas Winston is talking about a true (pure/direct) democracy. Very few places use the latter - Switzerland is assuredly the closest to it within Europe with a system that is a mixture of the two.

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-04, 00:26, said:

Which it does. If the masses didn't want it, they wouldn't have elected the government they did, they had the option to stand if they didn't like any of the other options.

So, it is not the fault of the unions but of the masses that elected the government, wouldn't you say?

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2016-June-04, 05:59, said:

What you are describing is a representative democracy whereas Winston is talking about a true (pure/direct) democracy. Very few places use the latter - Switzerland is assuredly the closest to it within Europe with a system that is a mixture of the two.

Yes, but even in a republic there can be variations in the amount of democracy.

[fromageGB]

Winstonm, on 2016-June-03, 08:48, said:

yet, democracy is all about the government following the will of the people, so "socialist" France is actually displaying the greatest degree of democracy.

Mais non, pas du tout. The will of the people is to keep guaranteed employment (if you can get it) that is for life or until retirement. Then the pension is index linked to 50% of your full earnings in your best earning years (adjusted for inflation). That's what the people want, but the government is contrarily trying to move them into the 20th century. That is NOT democracy.

[mike777]

I notice Germany had to cancel its military training with other countries. The reason was its soldiers were running into overtime and Germany did not want to pay them because it was too expensive.

htl

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2016-June-02, 06:48, said:

Statements like .. "They want us in so we can help bail out Greece, then Spain, and I'm not sure which next, Italy or Turkey?" .. this are taken straight from the Farage handbook and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU represents for countries like Germany. Could you provide any evidence at all other than basic xenophobia supporting the statement?

I could provide plenty of evidence that I am not xenophobic, nor is it the issue that we should care what the EU represents for Germany (though I read that there is a rapidly increasing number of Germans that want "out"). What is the issue is that the UK has no control or indeed influence on what the EU is spending our money. The initial fix for Greece has been exposed as a worthless con, and probably immediately after the referendum the EU is about to give them more billions and write off the previous loans that were promised to be repaid.

Can we stop it? No. Can we prevent it being repeated for other countries? No. Can we stop the EU in future deciding that current membership fees are insufficient to cover the outlay and need to be increased? No.

[mike777]

fromageGB, on 2016-June-04, 11:18, said:

I could provide plenty of evidence that I am not xenophobic, nor is it the issue that we should care what the EU represents for Germany (though I read that there is a rapidly increasing number of Germans that want "out"). What is the issue is that the UK has no control or indeed influence on what the EU is spending our money. The initial fix for Greece has been exposed as a worthless con, and probably immediately after the referendum the EU is about to give them more billions and write off the previous loans that were promised to be repaid.

Can we stop it? No. Can we prevent it being repeated for other countries? No. Can we stop the EU in future deciding that current membership fees are insufficient to cover the outlay and need to be increased? No.

Very confusing..the UK does not control and influence the people it appoints to the EU. It does not tell them what to do? It cannot fire them at will? If true can the UK at least impeach and remove them?
---------------

For example here in the USA the cabinet members may be fired anytime for any reason by the PResident and the President can be fired via impeachment(complicated)

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2016-June-04, 11:33, said:

For example here in the USA the cabinet members may be fired anytime for any reason

And the Supreme Court judges...?

[mike777]

Zelandakh, on 2016-June-04, 11:54, said:

And the Supreme Court judges...?

OK yes they can be fired via the same process, impeachment(complicated).

It is important to note the Supreme Court is an Equal branch of the government, it is equal to Congress and the President. Here in the USA we break up the government with competing branches (3) of limited power which are in constant conflict with each other. So for example the Supreme Court is given limited power over what it can and cannot do and yes we can fire them though it is complicated if the member fights to the death which in practice they do not do.


Again I am just asking about the EU and how people are fired and who can tell them/order them what to do...we here in the USA basically know nothing or less than nothing when it comes to the Eu.

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2016-June-04, 05:59, said:

What you are describing is a representative democracy whereas Winston is talking about a true (pure/direct) democracy. Very few places use the latter - Switzerland is assuredly the closest to it within Europe with a system that is a mixture of the two.

And Switzerland is NOT a member of the EU AND their economy is insulated from the vagaries of eco-loon green "edicts" from the central bureaucracy.

[Winstonm]

fromageGB, on 2016-June-04, 11:05, said:

Mais non, pas du tout. The will of the people is to keep guaranteed employment (if you can get it) that is for life or until retirement. Then the pension is index linked to 50% of your full earnings in your best earning years (adjusted for inflation). That's what the people want, but the government is contrarily trying to move them into the 20th century. That is NOT democracy.

The problem with democracy (in its pure form) is that the will of the majority can eliminate the rights of the minority. Likewise, the problem with capitalism in a democracy is that the majority may decide to wrest ownership rights from the wealthy. It is thus a constant battle in democracies as to which side will determine government policies.

The wealthy have their money and influence as their allies; the working class has numbers, if aligned. It is therefore imperative for the working class to have the ability and will to band together for their common good.

The alternative is to "let them eat cake", and as that ideology did not work out so well it might be wise for everyone to move toward compromise.

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-June-04, 14:01, said:

And Switzerland is NOT a member of the EU AND their economy is insulated from the vagaries of eco-loon green "edicts" from the central bureaucracy.

You should perhaps be happier that the EU is insulated from the eco-green policies of the Swiss. Or perhaps just accept that they see their interests as being aligned with those of the EU in this area (even if you disagree with the resulting policy).

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2016-June-04, 11:33, said:

Very confusing..the UK does not control and influence the people it appoints to the EU. It does not tell them what to do? It cannot fire them at will? If true can the UK at least impeach and remove them?
---------------

For example here in the USA the cabinet members may be fired anytime for any reason by the PResident and the President can be fired via impeachment(complicated)

Impeachment applies to crimes, not incompetence/irresponsibility.

As far as the UK representatives are concerned, they may or may not do what they can (22 out of 73 are UKIP), but they can be easily outnumbered by representatives from countries whose interests don't necessarily align with ours.

[mike777]

Vampyr, on 2016-June-04, 15:19, said:

Impeachment applies to crimes, not incompetence/irresponsibility.

As far as the UK representatives are concerned, they may or may not do what they can (22 out of 73 are UKIP), but they can be easily outnumbered by representatives from countries whose interests don't necessarily align with ours.

ok so to answer my question how does the UK fire these guys or are they an equal member of the government and answer to no one but themselves? I understand they are not the only voters in the EU but posters seem to say that not one UK EU controls or even has influence over the EU?


Again pls keep in mind we here in the USA no nothing or less than nothing when it comes to the EU, who it is, what it is or what power they have.

For example here in the USA the government has the power to:
1) Kill you if you commit a bad crime.
2) put you away for life in a horrible prison getting assaulted and raped every horrible day
3) take away your home and land even if you commit no crime, yes this is true and happens. (eminent domain)
4) force you into the army even if you dont want to go.