Originally posted by RedmikeAren't you guessing in declaring what he is guessing about?
The Government is formed from the majority or ruling party - in this case the labour party.
The opposition parties aren't part of the government.
All MPs, of whatever party, are members of the House of Commons.
While Davis was part of the last Conservative government, that was 10 years ago. He'll be guessing when he claims to know what is currently happening.
It is one thing to expose an inside source of information, but it is
a very high bar to declare that none exists. Are you more well
connected than he is?
Originally posted by RedmikeOf the Governments to come out of The Enlightenment, the U.K. really got the shaft. Not only do you not get to vote for your President, you have a one party Government? Why the devil are those people in the opposition being paid by the taxpayer? If they are not part of the government, send them home.
The Government is formed from the majority or ruling party - in this case the labour party.
The opposition parties aren't part of the government.
All MPs, of whatever party, are members of the House of Commons.
While Davis was part of the last Conservative government, that was 10 years ago. He'll be guessing when he claims to know what is currently happening.
Good lord, even the French got a better system than you guys did.
Originally posted by techsouthHe is in no position to have any knowledge of what support is privately given to the US by European nations.
Aren't you guessing in declaring what he is guessing about?
It is one thing to expose an inside source of information, but it is
a very high bar to declare that none exists. Are you more well
connected than he is?
He is simply a member of parliament, from the opposition party.
The claim is that there is a range of support provided from many EU countries. While I could accept that an ordinary MP might have some pals in one embassy or wherever who could quitely inform him that such support was provided from their country, the chances of any one individual, without access to government onformation, having that sort of information on a range of countries, just isn't on.
The guy is a chancer, and he's simply telling his audience what they want to hear.
Originally posted by spruce112358I reckon it's only a matter of time before Europe kicks out the multi-nationals, distances itself from the world bank and closes it's economy to the world, with a couple of exceptions which will benefit our living standards.
Quote from a Dutch article:
"In large segments of western Europe, American diplomacy has achieved the status of a leper. Each and every U.S. diplomatic initiative is automatically suspect, regardless of its content. The face America has shown since 9/11, with its emphasis on fighting on terror, is abhorrent to many.
West Europeans, after all, have ...[text shortened]... ree or disagree? Can Europe's foreign policy be summed up these says as 'don't bother us'?
Yes India and the US are more productive, but they have less holidays and work far longer hours. There is next to no social safety net. These are things that Europeans have fought for for more than a century.
As things stand, everything beautiful is being nibbled at, but people are starting to see the nibblers.
The US's behaviour has indeed angered many people. Their intentions which were only clear to a few well read people interested in the Middle-East, Asia and especially South and Central America are now perfectly clear to an ever growing majority.
There's a well known saying: "If you can't beat them, join them." But what if that which needs to be joined is immoral?
You can either oppose it or neglect it.
I think US imperialism will be neglected and that US free-for-all capitalism will be opposed.
Originally posted by MerkWe don't get to vote for our president because we don't have one.
Of the Governments to come out of The Enlightenment, the U.K. really got the shaft. Not only do you not get to vote for your President, you have a one party Government? Why the devil are those people in the opposition being paid by the taxpayer? If they are not part of the government, send them home.
Good lord, even the French got a better system than you guys did.
We don't necessarily have a one-party government. It is possible no single party would have a majority and some sort of coalition would be required. Just hasn't happened yet, as we're still pretty much a 2-party system at UK level.
The MPs are paid by the tax-payer in the same was as opposition Senators and Congress-people are in your country. They have a responsibility to represent the people who elected them.
Do you consider people from the opposition party part of the government? Maybe the issue is just terminology.
Originally posted by shavixmirDoes that mean us Americans will have to do without Italian leather and Swiss cheese? Or those delicate french rolls. Oh no, and what about those multi-nationals. Whatever will we do if Mercedez finds itself in need of a home.
I reckon it's only a matter of time before Europe kicks out the multi-nationals, distances itself from the world bank and closes it's economy to the world, with a couple of exceptions which will benefit our living standards.
Yes India and the US are more productive, but they have less holidays and work far longer hours. There is next to no social safet ...[text shortened]... ink US imperialism will be neglected and that US free-for-all capitalism will be opposed.
Go ahead and enjoy your social programs, we'll just go ahead and continue being the gold standard in friggin everything.
Okay. Not everything. Seriously though, do you think the Brits would go along with that plan?
Originally posted by PalynkaBof, another long post lost at the end of the page... 😞
Not at all.
First of all, the EU doesn't have any meaningful institution that coordinates foreign policy. Many make the mistake of believing this means that the EU cannot have common foreign policies, but this is utterly false. It just means that these decisions are decided through discussion and cooperation of individual members.
This can lead to a fu ...[text shortened]... to do so. This is the EU's encompassing struggle and one I'm willing to back all the way.
Originally posted by RedmikeYes, members of both the majority and minority party here get the same vote. They are both needed (in most cases) to pass any law.
We don't get to vote for our president because we don't have one.
We don't necessarily have a one-party government. It is possible no single party would have a majority and some sort of coalition would be required. Just hasn't happened yet, as we're still pretty much a 2-party system at UK level.
The MPs are paid by the tax-payer in the same was as opp ...[text shortened]... ople from the opposition party part of the government? Maybe the issue is just terminology.
The biggest difference between majority and minority here is that the majority gets to head the committees.
Can the opposition there introduce legislation?
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeIt is worth noting that everyone in Parliament gets to vote on the legislation going through Parliament, it's just that the majority party gets to choose what legislation is to be introduced to a vote; this being layed out in an manifesto of that party before an election.
We don't get to vote for our president because we don't have one.
We don't necessarily have a one-party government. It is possible no single party would have a majority and some sort of coalition would be required. Just hasn't happened yet, as we're still pretty much a 2-party system at UK level.
The MPs are paid by the tax-payer in the same was as opp ...[text shortened]... ople from the opposition party part of the government? Maybe the issue is just terminology.
(Hope that helps Merk)
Originally posted by Bad wolfYeah. That does a little. Still sounds like you get a ramrod, all-powerful political party that has total control.
It is worth noting that everyone in Parliament gets to vote on the legislation going through Parliament, it's just that the majority party gets to choose what legislation is to be introduced to a vote; this being layed out in an manifesto of that party before an election.
(Hope that helps Merk)
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by MerkIt's an elected dictatorship as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah. That does a little. Still sounds like you get a ramrod, all-powerful political party that has total control.
I think the electoral system needs changing, perhaps to an Additional Member System, whereby their would be far propertional representation, this would lead to more cooperation between the parties, in coalition governments, far more constructive in the long term I think.
How does it differ from the US?
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
1 edit
To elaborate on the elected dictatorship bit:
essentially MPs (members of Parliament) are expected to follow their party's line and vote with their party; there are even these people who are called party whips that enforce this, as an MP who doesn't vote with the government cannot expect to get promotion/department jobs, and probably wouldn't get support from their party in their next constituency election; this party whip tells the MP to vote with the party, with different levels of prudence of actually needing to vote.
Though there are sometimes free votes, whereby MPs can vote whichever way they want.
It is said that the MPs must do this because they owe their place in parliament to the party that supports them...
Further, the cabinet, this is what controls the party, with all the main jobs controlling all the different departments, they hold meetings on how to coordinate, etc.
And beyond this there is the Primeminister, that chairs the meetings, or rather controls it, dictating to the cabinet what they shall discuss, do, etc.
So you see? An elected dictatorship of one person.
It's disgusting. ðŸ˜
Originally posted by Bad wolfA couple of biggies being that we get to vote for president instead of the all-power party decided on an MP and any member of the Senate or Congress can introduce legislation.
It's an elected dictatorship as far as I'm concerned.
I think the electoral system needs changing, perhaps to an Additional Member System, whereby their would be far propertional representation, this would lead to more cooperation between the parties, in coalition governments, far more constructive in the long term I think.
How does it differ from the US?
Any party, or individual, can try and introduce legislation in the UK. But anything from the minority parties hasn't a snowball's chance. Sometimes an individual MPs proposal, or a small party's proposal's get through, but very rarely.
Small parties can amend government legislation too, sometimes succesfully.
A simple majority gets legislation passed in the Commons, then it goes to the Lords (which is mystery to everyone).
Then Lizzie signs it (wtf voted for her?) and it is law.
Your president is more powerful than our Prime Minister, in many ways.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by RedmikeA simple majority gets legislation passed in the Commons, then it goes to the Lords (which is mystery to everyone).
Any party, or individual, can try and introduce legislation in the UK. But anything from the minority parties hasn't a snowball's chance. Sometimes an individual MPs proposal, or a small party's proposal's get through, but very rarely.
Small parties can amend government legislation too, sometimes succesfully.
A simple majority gets legislation passed in ...[text shortened]... r?) and it is law.
Your president is more powerful than our Prime Minister, in many ways.
- Hopefully the elective reforms legislation of the House of Lords will change things, for the better, if it passes the House of Lords. 😕
Then Lizzie signs it (wtf voted for her?) and it is law.
- She doesn't sign it these days, someone else does....
Your president is more powerful than our Prime Minister, in many ways.
- I would disagree, I think the Primeminister has more power over the UK, then Bush has over the US; with all the undefined powers like the Royal Prerogative, ect, the power of the PM has no real limits, but the US president does have constitutional limits...