Left wingers are getting a bit scared

[XJ Flyer]

Zod said:

XJ Flyer said:

Asterix said:

So I'd like, for want of a better description, a Federal UK where powers are devolved at a regional level with a centralised national government supporting those regions.

The EU wants a Federal organisation where they control as much as possible of each of the regions.

Very different concepts.

No the words federal and devolved are a contradiction.The EU is just trying to do what federations do IE top down centralised government with the top being the supreme government.

If you want devolved then you want 'seperate' 'nation states'/regional government and if they must then work together while keeping their sovereignty/powers over the decision making process you want a 'Confederation' not a 'federation'.No surprise that the US has tried to make the word Confederation off the options list since the war of Northern Agression against the CSA.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 11:03

That's what I was thinking regarding your reference to 'centralised national government' 'supporting' the regions.Which in federalist language means more of the same top down EU type dictatorship carried out by the majority vote at federal level not regional.It is just that I decided to take some time making reasoned points rather than just laughing at the federalist cause which is really all it actually deserves.

[Mrr T]

XJ Flyer said:

You are missing the point that firstly in the USA decisions made at state level can be overruled at federal level.Just like in the case of the EU and just like in the case of the UK.

I presume you have never heard of the US constitution. The Tenth Amendment set out in detail what are Federal matters. The Federal government cannot over rule a state except on a federal matter.

[Mrr T]

Transmitter Man said:

XJ,

Let's cut through the crap.

Did the UK have the power to say no to letting in 500K Rumanian gypsy's, a proportion of which live and defecate in the central reservation of Park Lane, Mayfair?, or did Angela say no, stuff you, you're a member of my club so you have to let them go wherever they wish.

Or would you prefer the Australian answer?

Phil
Knightsbridge, SW3

Please apply brain before posting.

The answer to your above post is

YES

the UK did have a choise. It could have voted against expansion of the EU which is requires all member to agree.

[turbobloke]

Mrr T said:

XJ Flyer said:

You are missing the point that firstly in the USA decisions made at state level can be overruled at federal level.Just like in the case of the EU and just like in the case of the UK.

I presume you have never heard of the US constitution. The Tenth Amendment set out in detail what are Federal matters. The Federal government cannot over rule a state except on a federal matter.

Out of interest, who defined what is and what isn't a federal matter?

From the above (constitution) it appears to be on the government side!

[Mrr T]

turbobloke said:

Mrr T said:

XJ Flyer said:

You are missing the point that firstly in the USA decisions made at state level can be overruled at federal level.Just like in the case of the EU and just like in the case of the UK.

I presume you have never heard of the US constitution. The Tenth Amendment set out in detail what are Federal matters. The Federal government cannot over rule a state except on a federal matter.

Out of interest, who defined what is and what isn't a federal matter?

From the above (constitution) it appears to be on the government side!

The US constitution gives a range of powers to the federal government. Mainly, if I remember correct, Section 7 and 8.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution makes it clear that if the Constitution does not specifically make a matter a federal matter then its a state matter.

Mind you that does not stop constant battles between the states and the federal government as to the correct meaning of what is a state or federal matter.

[XJ Flyer]

Mrr T said:

XJ Flyer said:

You are missing the point that firstly in the USA decisions made at state level can be overruled at federal level.Just like in the case of the EU and just like in the case of the UK.

I presume you have never heard of the US constitution. The Tenth Amendment set out in detail what are Federal matters. The Federal government cannot over rule a state except on a federal matter.

The catch 22 being that any matter can be considered a federal matter where the federal government considers that state policy conflicts with federal policy.Which is why they ended up fighting a civil war over the matter and the wrong side won which is why the arguments rumble on ever since.

The fact is the federal system doesn't allow any other option but the top down system unlike the Confederal system because that is the definition of federal government.IE the federal government is the supreme government and can and often does overturn state laws.That argument only now having reached the point of calling for majority state supremacy over federal government let alone individual state supremacy.

www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/us/politics/20states.ht...

Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 23 September 13:45

[crankedup]

I am very concerned that the Labour Party could lose those Scottish voting Rights in Parliament. Not because its possibly a loss of Labour power but the partial loss of true political democracy. With just one dominant political party it will be a recipe for disaster.

[Rovinghawk]

crankedup said:

I am very concerned that the Labour Party could lose those Scottish voting Rights in Parliament.

Not losing all their rights- just losing the right to be involved in stuff that's none of their actual business.

We can't vote in theirs, they can't vote in ours. Seems fair to me.

[Asterix]

crankedup said:

With just one dominant political party it will be a recipe for disaster.

If Labour come up with reasonable policies that work for the majority and have MPs that are not idiots then people will vote for them.

So yeah, you are correct - they are doomed!

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

I am very concerned that the Labour Party could lose those Scottish voting Rights in Parliament. Not because its possibly a loss of Labour power but the partial loss of true political democracy. With just one dominant political party it will be a recipe for disaster.

Or more success in terms of the majority of the people seeing their vote leading to the Party they voted for getting in at election time. That's true democracy. The idea behind having any form of HM Opposition is to do what you claim will be missing. There will be the odd LibDem yellow spot here and there, a red blob or two particularly up north. What you're possibly mourning in advance, should England get what's on offer in other parts of the UK, is the loss of influence from outdated unaffordable left-ish dogma on the engine room of the former UK's economy and the more libertarian approach to responsible lifestyle self-determination with nanny state in retirement. Otherwise known as an excellent prospect to the large majority of English as opposed to UK voters.

[Transmitter Man]

XJ Flyer said:

Typically federalist logic trying to make the case to an anti federalist that I have to accept one form of federation or another.Neither thanks.

In this case the answer would be the seperate 'sovereign' nation states of England ( all of Ireland not just most of it ),Scotland,and Wales.How they govern themselves is then up to them.As for us based on the logic of it mostly being about local democracy England would then be run as a 'Confederation' of local government based on our old Saxon regional and county governments.In which the counties dictate to the regions and they then dictate that to the 'Confederal' government at Westmister want they intend to do not vice versa.In which case Surrey doesn't get people like Prescott or Cameron telling us to concrete over our countryside with development for example and I get electoral control over what happens in my own back yard.

All of which would be the antithesis of the average Soviet thinking top down dictatorship federalist.


As for Australia that is a sovereign country so it is up to them how they govern themselves.The relevant bit being that they haven't taken over NZ and then told the New Zealanders that the two governments and their national sovereignty will be merged to form the United Kingdom of Australia and New Zealand with it's supreme parliament in Canberra.The words 'local' 'sovereignty' and 'supremacy' of government being the deal breaker in the case of any federal system.

Ah yes, but you're sidestepping the issue.

Said Rumanian's or any other scroungers of your tax £ would just not be allowed in in the first place. In the case of Australia I think you know they get sent to Christmas Island or PNG.

Maybe we could use the Isle of Wight, that's a thought.

Phil

[Guybrush]

crankedup said:

I am very concerned that the Labour Party could lose those Scottish voting Rights in Parliament. Not because its possibly a loss of Labour power but the partial loss of true political democracy. With just one dominant political party it will be a recipe for disaster.

No, disaster should be averted from then on. Just look at the evidence for the current situation - around 85% of the population, which largely voted blue, often getting lumbered with an economy-destroying party of envy, largely because of the votes of a minority at the very north of the country.

[Du1point8]

I thought labour already rejected the idea that Scottish mps are not allowed to vote in England/uk only items?

Said it during an interview that despite the fact uk is not allowed to vote on Scottish only acts, they would not be allowing CMD to make sure the same rights are not in place to stop them voting on acts that are nothing to do with them.

[turbobloke]

Du1point8 said:

I thought labour already rejected the idea that Scottish mps are not allowed to vote in England/uk only items?

If the LibDems agree with the Conservatives then Labour can't stop it now, and after the 2015 election it's quite possible that the LibDems won't be in a position to stop the changes if they wanted to. They can say they won't allow it but being in a position to do anything about it is another matter.

[Zod]

Du1point8 said:

I thought labour already rejected the idea that Scottish mps are not allowed to vote in England/uk only items?

Said it during an interview that despite the fact uk is not allowed to vote on Scottish only acts, they would not be allowing CMD to make sure the same rights are not in place to stop them voting on acts that are nothing to do with them.

We of course Labour want to block it: it would mean no mansion tax, no bankers' bonus tax and no 50% tax rate, so none of the money (that would be next to nothing in any case) that they have promised multiple times over to cover their largesse to their client voters.

[XJ Flyer]

Transmitter Man said:

XJ Flyer said:

Typically federalist logic trying to make the case to an anti federalist that I have to accept one form of federation or another.Neither thanks.

In this case the answer would be the seperate 'sovereign' nation states of England ( all of Ireland not just most of it ),Scotland,and Wales.How they govern themselves is then up to them.As for us based on the logic of it mostly being about local democracy England would then be run as a 'Confederation' of local government based on our old Saxon regional and county governments.In which the counties dictate to the regions and they then dictate that to the 'Confederal' government at Westmister want they intend to do not vice versa.In which case Surrey doesn't get people like Prescott or Cameron telling us to concrete over our countryside with development for example and I get electoral control over what happens in my own back yard.

All of which would be the antithesis of the average Soviet thinking top down dictatorship federalist.


As for Australia that is a sovereign country so it is up to them how they govern themselves.The relevant bit being that they haven't taken over NZ and then told the New Zealanders that the two governments and their national sovereignty will be merged to form the United Kingdom of Australia and New Zealand with it's supreme parliament in Canberra.The words 'local' 'sovereignty' and 'supremacy' of government being the deal breaker in the case of any federal system.

Ah yes, but you're sidestepping the issue.

Said Rumanian's or any other scroungers of your tax £ would just not be allowed in in the first place. In the case of Australia I think you know they get sent to Christmas Island or PNG.

Maybe we could use the Isle of Wight, that's a thought.

Phil

If it is about the immigration issue firstly we need sovereignty over our own immigration policy and then we need a government that isn't committed to the cheap labour agenda of the Cons or the socialist and cheap labour agenda of the LabLibDems.The problem being it is still possible to have both of the latter even if we can sort out the former.

As for Australia this is the reality.

www.australiafirst.net/immigrationdisaster.htm

[edh]

There's lots of support from the loony libertarian right for devolving powers more locally in England.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/532...

btw the idea that Labour is in a tiny minority in England is wrong. Take out Scottish mp's and the GE result is usually the same. Labour is in a majority in most of the UK's big cities, and a minority in the shires.

Maybe what's wrong is that many people feel their votes will never ever count under a first past the post system. A more porportional system would shake up local government as well - too many cosy one-party states of all colours.

[turbobloke]

edh said:

the loony libertarian right

The sane libertarian right also houses some people, more than you might give credit for

edh said:

btw the idea that Labour is in a tiny minority in England is wrong. Take out Scottish mp's and the GE result is usually the same.

Has anyone mentioned a 'tiny minority' apart from your good self?

Data in the House of Commons Library posted in this or a similar thread shows that not having Scotland in the electoral fray is an effective way of preventing a Labour majority - which is different to guaranteeing a Conservative victory - based on the last 50 to 60 years.

Sounds good.

[XJ Flyer]

turbobloke said:

Du1point8 said:

I thought labour already rejected the idea that Scottish mps are not allowed to vote in England/uk only items?

If the LibDems agree with the Conservatives then Labour can't stop it now, and after the 2015 election it's quite possible that the LibDems won't be in a position to stop the changes if they wanted to. They can say they won't allow it but being in a position to do anything about it is another matter.

The reality being a case of each Party picking and choosing a mix and match of federalism and nationalism for both LabLibdem and Con Party political advantage.In which whatever happens we can bet that the English will get stitched up to pay for the spending plans of the Scottish let alone the EU.

Except there is no third option to vote for for those of us who can see through the scam.Now that UKIP has obviously nailed its colours to the Cons cause in effectively paying off the Scottish to create a perceived Con fiefdom within the UK and EU federations at the expense of the English.Assuming that is the LabLibdem coalition allow themselves to be wiped out south of the border.

While assuming the plan succeeds we've already had a similar unchallenged Con regime under Thatcher and if that's supposed to be the way to make England better off then Scotland will probably be the better place to live in of the two.

[JagLover]

turbobloke said:

Has anyone mentioned a 'tiny minority' apart from your good self?

Data in the House of Commons Library posted in this or a similar thread shows that not having Scotland in the electoral fray is an effective way of preventing a Labour majority, which is different to guaranteeing a Conservative victory, based on the last 50 to 60 years.

Yep, having "English votes for English laws" does not mean permanent Tory government, particularly given the rise in UKIP. Some parliaments they might have a majority, in others need a coalition with the LIb Dems, and in others Labour could form a coalition with the Lib-dems.

What is does mean that Labour can't achieve 30-33% of the English vote and then spend 5 years inflicting their out of date, envy based, policies on us.