Brexit Celebrations

[SKP555]

ATG said:

Maybe, but I've seen damn all evidence to suggest that is the case.

You have no idea what my friends and contacts do our do not know about British politics, and you have no idea about their sense of humour. And did you really think I was saying we should have stayed in the EU to avoid embarrassment? Let me be clear; I think leaving the EU is a stupid idea. I cringe at the stupidity of it every time I think about it.

Well if they are shocked and bemused about the decision to leave they obviously don't know a whole lot. It's been in the offing for years.

I know nothing of their/your humour, it might be great.

I just find embarrassment a curious feeling in relation to Brexit.

[SKP555]

There's no definitive measure of how democratic any system of government is, so putting people's rejection of the EU down to them being ignorant is a rather odd approach.

There's definitely more to it than just election systems and appointment procedures.

Perhaps the greatest democratic failing of the EU is that there is no EU demos. There were no institutions which caught the public imagination and no issues which sparked an EU wide popular debate.

European elections were only ever fought by national parties on national issues and covered by national media.

Ultimately if the population doesn't accept the institutions in the first place then they can't be democratic. The fact that the most cited reason for voting leave in the referendum was to have decision making in Britain rather than Brussels makes a mockery of the notion of the EU as a democracy.

[SKP555]

Remember under one of the most proportional systems in the world Mark Rutte just remained PM of the Netherlands with a shade above 20% of the vote.

[SKP555]

FN2TypeR said:

SKP555 said:

Remember under one of the most proportional systems in the world Mark Rutte just remained PM of the Netherlands with a shade above 20% of the vote.

That's because they tend to lean towards returning a coalition style Government and "true" PR certainly does.

He's not a dictator who has been installed on the back of some shonky vote.

No not at all. But is he any more legitimate than a PM elected by FPTP on 30% of the vote?

And especially relevant here, does he have any particular moral right to pick and choose who he will form a coalition with, to the extent of excluding Geert Wilders PVV with 13% while including the CU with 3.4%?

[SKP555]

Mrr T said:

In order to pass legislation he will need a coalition with close to 50% of the vote. So far more legitimacy then a FPTP leader with 30% of the vote.

Even if it's passing a restriction on abortion in exchange for relaxing banling regulations?

[SKP555]

Mrr T said:

SKP555 said:

Mrr T said:

In order to pass legislation he will need a coalition with close to 50% of the vote. So far more legitimacy then a FPTP leader with 30% of the vote.

Even if it's passing a restriction on abortion in exchange for relaxing banking regulations?

Yes.

I don't see how that is more democratic. Maybe 2% wanted tighter abortion laws and 12% wanted banking deregulation. There is no way in which that equates to 51% in favour of either. It's just political horse trading.

[SKP555]

The point is small minority parties can still wield huge power under PR.

IMO the advantages of having a local MP outweigh the benefits of having party lists.

[SKP555]

SpielBoy said:

Unlike the current situation where a minority party holds total power ??

True. But our main parties tend to be broader and usually Tory or Labour win by encompassing small groups such as the Tory eurosceptics but also having a wider appeal. Smaller parties like UKIP (and the Greens etc) can exert their influence by challenging them at elections. This also cuts out back room dealing after the elections.

Neither system is perfect.