Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Tubey]

That was not what you were saying, though. You were saying that the employees, or "the populace" in your latest analogy, have no voice when the leader thinks it is not in what they define as the national interest.

Or to put it another way, in 2005 the party that won an election promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (edit: sorry, the Constitution that was its immediate forebear). In 2010, the party that in effect won an election promised no further transfer of powers without the people having a say (which was to suggest a referendum without actually promising one). In 2015, the party that won promised an in-out referendum. In 2016, the country voted to leave.

What you think is that all that should be ignored just because you think it might be a bad thing. That is not leadership.

We'll have to disagree then fundamentally, because that is my literal definition of leadership - doing the right thing even if it's not the popular thing to do.

 

[tsubaki]

We'll have to disagree then fundamentally, because that is my literal definition of leadership - doing the right thing even if it's not the popular thing to do.

That isn't your definition of leadership, though. Your definition is doing the right thing for you, even if its not the popular thing to do.

 

[Tubey]

Labour want to borrow 100 billion besides Brexit so no worries there its people who are money men who bought dollars before brexit that annoy me!
James O'brian on LBC a big remainer a true liberal admitted this - principles out of the window imo! GREED is why I want the EU to be ditched and trade in the free world Europe will trade with us forget the myths and the scare stories as they would be hurt more than us!

You'll find the current Tory Chancellor is doing the same thing, because he has to - there's no chance of having a surplus now because of Brexit; the national debt will skyrocket.

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-blamed-for-uks-163100bn-budget-black-hole-10660077

That black hole has to be filled sadly, and it means borrowing it.

 

[Tubey]

That isn't your definition of leadership, though. Your definition is doing the right thing for you, even if its not the popular thing to do.

No, not the right thing for me - for the business. You simply don't want to read what I said, which was - "in the best interest of the business and their jobs."

 

[tsubaki]

No, not the right thing for me - for the business. You simply don't want to read what I said, which was - "in the best interest of the business and their jobs."

... and who is the arbiter of what is in the best interest?

 

[Joey66]

You'll find the current Tory Chancellor is doing the same thing, because he has to - there's no chance of having a surplus now because of Brexit; the national debt will skyrocket.

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-blamed-for-uks-163100bn-budget-black-hole-10660077

That black hole has to be filled sadly, and it means borrowing it.

As I said Labour plan on borrowing 100 billion so with interest rates low ?
Osborne deficit reductions all done by quantitative easing the debt however has zoomed up since 2008!
nothing to do with the EU other than uncertainty we are holding our own we have growth the EU cannot boast that!

 

[Tubey]

... and who is the arbiter of what is in the best interest?

Parliament, then ultimately the PM. Hence why terms should be discussed, debated and - if need be - refused in parliament in relation to Brexit.

For a business, the best interest lies with a board of directors and a business owner.

The populace put their trust in parliament to act for them. The employees of a business put their trust in the owners to grow the business and secure their jobs. That's what it comes down - trust in those tasked to lead to ensure the best interests of all.

 

[tsubaki]

Parliament, then ultimately the PM. Hence why terms should be discussed, debated and - if need be - refused in parliament in relation to Brexit.

For a business, the best interest lies with a board of directors and a business owner.

The populace put their trust in parliament to act for them. The employees of a business put their trust in the owners to grow the business and secure their jobs. That's what it comes down - trust in those tasked to lead to ensure the best interests of all.

I don't disagree that is what the public expect Parliament to do. My objection to what you are saying is that its abundantly clear that you (or Parliament, if you want) only consider things to be "in the best interests of all" when they are in your (or their) interest. You (or they) know best; everyone else is wrong, or deluded, or has been lied to.

 

[Tubey]

I don't disagree that is what the public expect Parliament to do. My objection to what you are saying is that its abundantly clear that you (or Parliament, if you want) only consider things to be "in the best interests of all" when they are in your (or their) interest. You (or they) know best; everyone else is wrong, or deluded, or has been lied to.

Ah I see why you'd think that... I'll go in to more detail if you can be arsed reading this late!

No, not quite. If I thought the issue was remotely reasonable, then vetoing it would be a tittish move, to put it bluntly. That would be akin to dictatorship. That's why we have manifestos and mandates at the end of the day, because you put your ideas to the public, then you work to implement them.

It's just on this issue; it is so important that it supercedes popular opinion and should be judged on more logical grounds by those responsible for acting in the best interests of the country, particularly the chance of massive economic self-harm that could linger for decades.

Let's face it, if we left all decisions to the populace, then you'd have some totally unrealistic policies come into law that would be disastrous for the country, because populist actions like massive tax cuts and so on would be voted on because nobody really gives a toss about thinking about the long term consequences. It's up to parliament to understand we can't just throw free money at everyone and everything, because it isn't a bottomless well.

Speaking of manifestos, they are never implemented in full, because ideas become unworkable. For example, look at the British Bill of Rights from the Tory 2015 manifesto. Like Brexit, you could argue the populace voted for that to be implemented no matter what, but in reality the landscape shifts and whoever governs needs to weigh whether it's actually a good idea after all.

So again, no, I'm not saying everything should be overruled by the executive, but I am saying they should reserve the right to do so if it makes sense to do it, and the consequences of not vetoing it are so severe as to risk serious national harm.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

So it's just a case of when its paid off then......And their 25% unemployment rate is neither here nor there.......And 46% youth unemployment....sounds fine....

Well yes. Have you never had a mortgage Pete? By their nature they are roughly 3x personal 'GDP', yet it doesn't seem to put people off. I'm not suggesting that their economy isn't a basket case, but I know it's an ugly truth that countries have sovereignty inside the EU, but that's the case, and the Greeks unfortunately messed up in a major way.

What debt does Greece owe us? If any far below the debt owed to Germany so your statement belies the true state of affairs. Economical with the facts here Bruce.

Ok, so if we don't give the Greeks any money on very low interest rates, but the Germans do, we're somehow helping them more?

They are only manageable if your GDP can afford them.

2.6% is what their loan repayments are as a percentage of their GDP. Of course they can afford them.

 

[peteblue]

I'll just refer you to Brennans post really.

You've just defined the role of a Prime Minister by the way; the end result of our democracy. Parliament is akin to a board of directors - they make decisions as a collective, but the chief exec or owner ultimately has the final say and acts in what they feel is the best interest of the business.

Whether you like it or not, having leaders means allocating power to them.

So to simplify:

PM = Business owner
Parliament = Directors
Populace = Employees

The only difference is that in business, you generally can't get rid of the owner if he does a bad job. Other than that, the parallels are fine.

Running a business is nothing like running a country, or vice versa,just ask the BHS electorate about Sir Philip Green becoming the next PM, or Alex Salmond running Tesco.....sorry mate but this is absolute nonsense.......

 

[peteblue]

Ah I see why you'd think that... I'll go in to more detail if you can be arsed reading this late!

No, not quite. If I thought the issue was remotely reasonable, then vetoing it would be a tittish move, to put it bluntly. That would be akin to dictatorship. That's why we have manifestos and mandates at the end of the day, because you put your ideas to the public, then you work to implement them.

It's just on this issue; it is so important that it supercedes popular opinion and should be judged on more logical grounds by those responsible for acting in the best interests of the country, particularly the chance of massive economic self-harm that could linger for decades.

Let's face it, if we left all decisions to the populace, then you'd have some totally unrealistic policies come into law that would be disastrous for the country, because populist actions like massive tax cuts and so on would be voted on because nobody really gives a toss about thinking about the long term consequences. It's up to parliament to understand we can't just throw free money at everyone and everything, because it isn't a bottomless well.

Speaking of manifestos, they are never implemented in full, because ideas become unworkable. For example, look at the British Bill of Rights from the Tory 2015 manifesto. Like Brexit, you could argue the populace voted for that to be implemented no matter what, but in reality the landscape shifts and whoever governs needs to weigh whether it's actually a good idea after all.

So again, no, I'm not saying everything should be overruled by the executive, but I am saying they should reserve the right to do so if it makes sense to do it, and the consequences of not vetoing it are so severe as to risk serious national harm.

So you would have been very happy for a remain vote to have been overturned by the 'executive' and taken us out of the EU once they had considered it. There are also quite a lot of these senior MP's who would just like to get out of the EU today, so should we do that, or should we just do whatever Theresa May and her cabinet decide. I agree that in reality that the landscape can shift, and it has very definitely shifted to one where we need to get out......

 

[peteblue]

We'll have to disagree then fundamentally, because that is my literal definition of leadership - doing the right thing even if it's not the popular thing to do.

Strangely enough, our leader is doing what is more popular and is the right thing.........so we are all happy then.....

 

[peteblue]

I just wish that those who want to remain could get as wound up over the way the Eu is being run and see why Brexit happened.

Pretending that it is fine, or even worse knowing it is crap but we would still like to be a member for monetary reasons, is what will ultimately take it down and it's a shame. It was a good idea that has sadly gone badly wrong.

Now France will probably go the same way as the UK but for different reasons....

"Le Pen took 29 per cent of the vote, eight points ahead of former president Nicolas Sarkozy, who has since withdrawn from the race.

She also held a 15-point lead over democrat socialist party Parti de Gauche’s Jean-Luc Melenchon, and the effects of Brexit and Donald Trump’s shock election victory appear to have boosted the far right leader’s chances in the race to become the next French president."

 

[Bruce Wayne]

So it's our fault the far-right are doing so well, and not those who actually vote for them. I'm glad that's cleared up.