Shrimpsvoices

so there we have it the eu have voted a new president(did anyone ask me if i could vote..NO)

so we now have people that can be voted in as unellected

brits were denied a vote

ireland got a vote but it didnt suit the eu...so go back and vote again until you say yeeeeeeeees........(democratic hey)

bolox...........................

Without proportional representation we will always have unelecetd MP's.

I personally think that democracy is a smokescreen that usually results in a result that most people did not want (with the exception of jedward) the people in power on this flat earth do not run for office

shrimpnsave wrote:so there we have it the eu have voted a new president(did anyone ask me if i could vote..NO)

so we now have people that can be voted in as unellected

brits were denied a vote

ireland got a vote but it didnt suit the eu...so go back and vote again until you say yeeeeeeeees........(democratic hey)

bolox...........................

Not quite right. They were elected by the 27 elected leaders of each of the European Union member states and they still need to be approved by the elected members of the European Parliament before being able to take up their posts. These two people have a far better democratic mandate than say the Leader of Lancaster City Council (his party got less than 10% of the vote and less than 4% of the entire electorate voted for his party).

Without proportional representation

have u lost the plot

none have been elected

mrpotatohead wrote:I personally think that democracy is a smokescreen that usually results in a result that most people did not want (with the exception of jedward) the people in power on this flat earth do not run for office

think is one big word.............

at least it was anyone-but-the-war-criminal. Mind you, he is doing a very good job as peace envoy to the Middle East (wonder how much he gets paid for that?)

What's sad for me is that Herman Van Rompuy, who will earn more than Gordon Brown or President Abama at a cost of over £5M to the taxpayer, and Baroness Ashton will have the power to remove our National Anthem and Union Flag

Will this mean football fans throughout Europe will have to throw away their flags and replace them with blue flags with stars on them?

No doubt it will be a criminal offence to use the existing ones over here while the rest will just carry on regardless

Don't suppose the 500 million people they represent will get a look in.

Posh wrote:These two people have a far better democratic mandate than say the Leader of Lancaster City Council (his party got less than 10% of the vote and less than 4% of the entire electorate voted for his party).

Just to clarify Posh, are you saying that the Leader of Lancaster City Council has never been elected to anything, like Baroness Ashton?

Keith wrote:

Posh wrote:These two people have a far better democratic mandate than say the Leader of Lancaster City Council (his party got less than 10% of the vote and less than 4% of the entire electorate voted for his party).

Just to clarify Posh, are you saying that the Leader of Lancaster City Council has never been elected to anything, like Baroness Ashton?

Yes. She was elected in a vote of 27 people who have a democratic mandate from 500 million -and unanimously. An excellent former Trade Commissioner who will be an excellent diplomat and not a poncy egotist.

Posh wrote:

Keith wrote:

Posh wrote:These two people have a far better democratic mandate than say the Leader of Lancaster City Council (his party got less than 10% of the vote and less than 4% of the entire electorate voted for his party).

Just to clarify Posh, are you saying that the Leader of Lancaster City Council has never been elected to anything, like Baroness Ashton?

Yes. She was elected in a vote of 27 people who have a democratic mandate from 500 million -and unanimously. An excellent former Trade Commissioner who will be an excellent diplomat and not a poncy egotist.

proportional representation ???????????????

27 people

oh i guess we wont get to vote again

the eu cant even balance there books

you thought our little britain expensis row was a scandal



watch this space...........

Posh wrote:

Keith wrote:

Posh wrote:These two people have a far better democratic mandate than say the Leader of Lancaster City Council (his party got less than 10% of the vote and less than 4% of the entire electorate voted for his party).

Just to clarify Posh, are you saying that the Leader of Lancaster City Council has never been elected to anything, like Baroness Ashton?

Yes. She was elected in a vote of 27 people who have a democratic mandate from 500 million -and unanimously. An excellent former Trade Commissioner who will be an excellent diplomat and not a poncy egotist.

Ah, like the politburo? Okay, now I understand.

marky No.1 wrote:What's sad for me is that Herman Van Rompuy, who will earn more than Gordon Brown or President Abama at a cost of over £5M to the taxpayer, and Baroness Ashton will have the power to remove our National Anthem and Union Flag

Will this mean football fans throughout Europe will have to throw away their flags and replace them with blue flags with stars on them? .

Don't forget to add he's a convicted paedophile, has 666 tattoed on the side of his head and is the lovechild of Graham Westley sorry Goebells.

Mark!!! I expected better from you. If you read van Rumpypumpy's excellent speech he's a massive advocate of the diversity of Europe and has none of the powers dreamt up by the Daily Mail. If anything his appointment is a victory for those advocating a reversal of the move to Federalism. However as with all coverage in our media the quality of debate is pathetic.

Posh wrote:

marky No.1 wrote:What's sad for me is that Herman Van Rompuy, who will earn more than Gordon Brown or President Abama at a cost of over £5M to the taxpayer, and Baroness Ashton will have the power to remove our National Anthem and Union Flag

Will this mean football fans throughout Europe will have to throw away their flags and replace them with blue flags with stars on them? .

Don't forget to add he's a convicted paedophile, has 666 tattoed on the side of his head and is the lovechild of Graham Westley sorry Goebells.

Mark!!! I expected better from you. If you read van Rumpypumpy's excellent speech he's a massive advocate of the diversity of Europe and has none of the powers dreamt up by the Daily Mail. If anything his appointment is a victory for those advocating a reversal of the move to Federalism. However as with all coverage in our media the quality of debate is pathetic.

you SIMPLY dont get the argument do you

had enuff,off this topic............................................................................

Keith wrote:
Ah, like the politburo? Okay, now I understand.

So let me get this straight we've got Marky complaining about the £5 million cost of their salaries, staff and offices. However you're complaining about not spending another £50 million on an election for the two posts. Meanwhile UK taxpayers spent £300 million on investment bankers fees to increase our stake in RBS from 70% to 84% yet no one bats an eye.

shrimpnsave wrote:
you SIMPLY dont get the argument do you

had enuff,off this topic............................................................................

I'm sorry but your post is a serious breach of the EU Use of Dots and Dots Quota Act 2003 consider yourself another victim of Brussels bureaucracy. Your sentence is to read aRichard Littlejohn column.

Posh wrote:

shrimpnsave wrote:
you SIMPLY dont get the argument do you

had enuff,off this topic............................................................................

I'm sorry but your post is a serious breach of the EU Use of Dots and Dots Quota Act 2003 consider yourself another victim of Brussels bureaucracy. Your sentence is to read aRichard Littlejohn column.

thanks for that

rl will probablly talk more sense than you...............

you are a funny one shrimpsave, you have a pick, then when confronted with facts you are dismissive and move on, are you my blinkered ex wife

mrpotatohead wrote:you are a funny one shrimpsave, you have a pick, then when confronted with facts you are dismissive and move on, are you my blinkered ex wife

soz but i thougt you were a eleven 11
can you be married at eleven yr old
and also u spelt my name wrong
did nobody tell you how to spell at schooooool

just become Swedish and a True Pagan, free love n all that

Posh wrote:

Keith wrote:
Ah, like the politburo? Okay, now I understand.

So let me get this straight we've got Marky complaining about the £5 million cost of their salaries, staff and offices. However you're complaining about not spending another £50 million on an election for the two posts. Meanwhile UK taxpayers spent £300 million on investment bankers fees to increase our stake in RBS from 70% to 84% yet no one bats an eye.

The role that the 'never elected by the public to anything' Lady is apparently "Europe's Hilary Clinton and the person that the Americans will approach in the first place" according to Radio 4. The President is 'theoretically' the most important & powerful person in Europe. Yet the people in the UK had no choice in the matter. Does that sound like democracy?

Now in actual fact, I am leaning less and less towards 'democracy' because I'm no longer convinced it is the best form of government. It actually is not a system of meritocracy and in fact stifles a promotion (election) based on merit for one of personality and funding. Baroness Ashton may indeed be the best person for the job, having got their on merit and the basis of being damn good. Apparently her negotiation skills are second to none, perfect for her new role. So I'm not against her appointment per-se.

What I would like is for people (Posh ) to at least be honest and stop pretending it is still democratic and just say "we've got a great person in the position even if it isn't democratic, so tough".

Posh wrote:Mark!!! I expected better from you. If you read van Rumpypumpy's excellent speech he's a massive advocate of the diversity of Europe and has none of the powers dreamt up by the Daily Mail. If anything his appointment is a victory for those advocating a reversal of the move to Federalism. However as with all coverage in our media the quality of debate is pathetic.

I knew I should'nt have entered a political debate! No I hav'nt read his speech but I do apologise if what the Mail wrote was BOLLOX!

Will leave it to the experts in future

Keith wrote:Now in actual fact, I am leaning less and less towards 'democracy' because I'm no longer convinced it is the best form of government. It actually is not a system of meritocracy and in fact stifles a promotion (election) based on merit for one of personality and funding. Baroness Ashton may indeed be the best person for the job, having got their on merit and the basis of being damn good. Apparently her negotiation skills are second to none, perfect for her new role. So I'm not against her appointment per-se.

What I would like is for people (Posh ) to at least be honest and stop pretending it is still democratic and just say "we've got a great person in the position even if it isn't democratic, so tough".

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried - Winston Churchill.

I agree it's not perfect and encourages short-termism but what would you propose instead? Personally I'd abolish political parties and run the state like a business. No set periods for elections, but the public (shareholders) can oust the current leader in an AGM if they want.

The Marksman wrote:Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried - Winston Churchill.

I agree it's not perfect and encourages short-termism but what would you propose instead? Personally I'd abolish political parties and run the state like a business. No set periods for elections, but the public (shareholders) can oust the current leader in an AGM if they want.

To be honest, I really do think that a slightly less 'paranoid' version of China is the best way forward. Take every high school and test every student. The top 1% go through to a regional test. Of the 'ten' (or however many) regions, take the top 5%. Then of the cream of the cream, they go to the top universities. On graduating, they are fast tracked in to political management. By the time they get to 30, you've got people who are very bright, well trained, experienced. Perhaps include 5 years secondment into public health, social services or industry.

At the end of all this or something similar, we would have something close to a true meritocracy.

Keith wrote:The role that the 'never elected by the public to anything' Lady is apparently "Europe's Hilary Clinton and the person that the Americans will approach in the first place" according to Radio 4. The President is 'theoretically' the most important & powerful person in Europe. Yet the people in the UK had no choice in the matter. Does that sound like democracy?

Firstly yes it does sound like democracy. They did have a choice in the matter because they 1. Voted for a national government who are with other nations responsible collectively for EU policy and laws, and whose European policies appear in their manifestos. 2. They voted for an MEP who with other MEPs are collectively responsible for overview, scrutiny and approval of laws.

In the same way no person has ever voted for a Prime Minister. Your ballot paper gives you a choice of candidates for a political constituency and from a range of political parties.

It's not that there is no democracy only a different form of democracy. The US Presidential system allows you to directly vote not only for the President but also for the Vice-President, as well as those charged with a much vigorous form of scrutiny in the Senate and House of Representatives. Yet none of his or her cabinet have to be elected and they can easily evade scrutiny. Also money is focused on the Presidential campaign to the deteriment of the campaign itself. The UK political parties and all candidates spent around £30 million in 2005 on the General Election add in local spending and it rose to around £60 million. Yet in the 2008 US Presidential JUST the two main candidates, i.e. not their parties, nor their senators, not representatives spent between them $1.23 billion or around £800 million. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php. Here's a Kansas senator's spending http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/ ... cycle=2010. $1.23 million in just one year.

Keith wrote:What I would like is for people (Posh ) to at least be honest and stop pretending it is still democratic and just say "we've got a great person in the position even if it isn't democratic, so tough".

Herman and Cathy were elected by those responsible for creating European law. The fact no one knows them and they weren't elected by us is actually a very good thing. I'd argue that a public election for a European President would be a farce as it wouldn't differ much to the Eurovision song contest and it would focus too much power on someone flambouyant working to their own ends rather than in the interest of the 27 member states national sovereignty, which both people have pledged to uphold.

It is also far more more democratic than the current system. At present each EU member state takes a turn, decided in a tombola probably, at being president for six months during which they try to inflict their grand ideas on Europe. That's no way to plan and no way to make proper legislation.

So Keith, I'm sorry, it is democrary, just democracy you don't necessarily agree with.