Plus, logically, removing your party of all dissenting voices will ultimately result in it only containing those unified in their loyalty to you (or otherwise pretending so)!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
Plus, logically, removing your party of all dissenting voices will ultimately result in it only containing those unified in their loyalty to you (or otherwise pretending so)!
I'm always amazed this isn't illegal tbh, is there a "good side" that I'm missing?
Referring to forcing certain votes/punishing for dissent.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No. It's how essentially all parliamentary systems work. The government is bound by the principle of collective responsibility; all decisions must be made unanimously. If you vote against the government, you are breaching collective responsibility, and accordingly must stand down or be dismissed from government positions.
It makes more sense when you put it that way, especially for the party in power. Makes me think of faithless electors in the US - the people have already voted for the party(/policy) they support.
Yeah I dont understand how they believe thats Democracy.
Edit: Because its not really a collective. The Leader of the party dictates the policies and directions of the party everyone must kowtow to them.
The idea - and this was more true before Thatcher and Blair - is that the Prime Minister is primus inter pares, i.e. first among equals. These days, the PM generally holds more sway, at least among the cabinet. Hammond wilting against May on the NIC rise is a nice little demonstration of that.
What's more, it's kind of necessary for government to, well, function and not tear itself to pieces every five minutes. Even in these coalitions of similar political ideologies, people can vehemently disagree on an incredible amount of things (see: Labour).
What's more, it's kind of necessary for government to, well, function and not tear itself to pieces every five minutes. Even in these coalitions of similar political ideologies, people can vehemently disagree on an incredible amount of things (see: Labour).
Theonik
Member
Well kinda. I always find it amusing when people (correctly) point out that you don't vote for parties but for a single MP to represent your constituency. In practice of course the party is what sets policy and the individual MPs can hold a lot less sway than they probably should.
They could probably have made allowances for Lord Heseltine to rebel, given that he wasn't in the government but just an advisor, but it's hardly unexpected that he'd be fired from that role after voting against the government.
If the intention was to show May's ruthlessness in dealing with internal opponents, it certainly worked. See all the moderate Tories like Grieves, Morgan and Soubry making eloquent speeches about the single market, or a meaningful vote, then sitting on their hands at the end.
Still, it leaves Heseltine to talk freely, and he's certainly doing that, attacking the three Brexiteers.
If the intention was to show May's ruthlessness in dealing with internal opponents, it certainly worked. See all the moderate Tories like Grieves, Morgan and Soubry making eloquent speeches about the single market, or a meaningful vote, then sitting on their hands at the end.
Still, it leaves Heseltine to talk freely, and he's certainly doing that, attacking the three Brexiteers.
I dont agree that its necessary. Having disagreements and figuring out how to resolve them amicably is necessary and healthy and indicative of a good governmental system. Its shows that their policies are more than just religious tenets. If someone has a good reason and a good argument against something then that should be taken into account.
Having everyone agree just because its the law is indicative of a crusader mentality. Leader says lets all go to war, evenyone has to say yes boss.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think the point is that government ministers are allowed to disagree in private, but in public they have to be unanimous in action. Imagine if the Chancellor wanted to strip the NHS of funding but the Health Secretary wanted to put more money in, and they decided to both follow their own policy with the Chancellor putting executive limits on spending and the Health Secretary just running up debt. It wouldn't work, in the slightest; you can't have hugely complex and interlinked structures pulling in different directions like that.
The disagreements and resolutions are supposed to take place in the legislative arena, which has an authoritative resolution process (voting) and a single form of output (legislation). In the parliamentary system, the government arises from the legislature. Disagreements should already have been resolved where possible. If you do want to disagree with the government, you resign from the government and go back to the legislature to stop them.
I don't agree with May's policies in the slightest, but sacking Heseltine for voting against the government is entirely within the norm and is a necessary step to ensure the government doesn't just fall apart.
Yeah I guess that makes sense in general. But if they disagreed that greatly on a policy then its difficult to understand why they are in the same party. They should at least have reasoned arguments as to why they think their right. Then it should be somewhat clear who is closest to being right(if not they need to go back to the drawing or board or whatever).
And in the case of Brexit I doubt that any debates happened, "Brexit means Brexit, we all go to hell together on my order". To hell with a reasonable courses of action.
Well, Corbyn didn't enforce any punishment against MPs who defied a 3 line whip twice in a row.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
He's not the best metric for judging how effective political parties operate within parliamentary systems
JonathanEx
Member
Or about the relationship between MPs and whips
Linkstrikesback
Member
Corbyn wouldn't be capable of enacting a punishment on an MP if they walked up to him mid parliament and punched him square in the face.
GamingKaiju
Member
So uhh this country is fucked.
There aint much else to say now.
There aint much else to say now.
DarthMasta
Member
Have you guys seen the Guardian British expats in Spain video?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-spain-count-the-costa-brexit-video?CMP=fb_gu
Some people are going to get a pretty rude awakening, and yeah, the entire entitled attitude is a bit hard to take, but hell, old people in general are set in their ways and not terribly adept at changing, not too difficult to see how some retired old people have a hard time readjusting to a world where Spaniards are actually people and not just the butt of jokes on Fawlty Towers, hard as it might be to take...
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-spain-count-the-costa-brexit-video?CMP=fb_gu
Some people are going to get a pretty rude awakening, and yeah, the entire entitled attitude is a bit hard to take, but hell, old people in general are set in their ways and not terribly adept at changing, not too difficult to see how some retired old people have a hard time readjusting to a world where Spaniards are actually people and not just the butt of jokes on Fawlty Towers, hard as it might be to take...
anonymous_abc
Member
Urgh...
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...impact-with-40-percent-considering-relocation
40% of UK game studios said they're considering relocation, because of Brexit.
not sure if discussed here, I couldn't find anything, but this is pretty bad. I mean, everything overall is bad, but a country with to entertainment industry is just sad. I've come to this country for this and if it just decreases and disappears I'm out too.
40% of UK game studios said they're considering relocation, because of Brexit.
not sure if discussed here, I couldn't find anything, but this is pretty bad. I mean, everything overall is bad, but a country with to entertainment industry is just sad. I've come to this country for this and if it just decreases and disappears I'm out too.
ultratruman
Banned
Lots of those games companies are based in Scotland.
And Kabouter is probably right, I can see us voting No again.
Having to hope for a referendum to escape this burning building is dreadful.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
More or less. Labour is functionally two parties right now that hate each other passionately but have to co-exist under the same label because lol FPTP.
daily reminder that fuck FPTP
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think the simpler explanation is probably that May just wants to get Brexit out of the way. Westminster has complete control over the referendum process at the end of the day, if she wanted to exclude EU nationals she'd just add a bit of legislation saying "no EU nationals". Alternatively, if she decides not to do anything about it and devolves the franchise power to Holyrood, then even after Brexit the SNP can say "EU nationals can vote". Think this is a bit of exaggeration.
92% decrease in EU nationals registering as NHS nurses
68% increase in EU nurses leaving the NHS
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/18/nhs-eu-nurses-quit-record-numbers
That'll stop them immergantz from clogging up our NHS!
68% increase in EU nurses leaving the NHS
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/18/nhs-eu-nurses-quit-record-numbers
That'll stop them immergantz from clogging up our NHS!
All going according to plan.
Bring over the US Private companies 100% to fix this issue, they have the expertise.
Fucking idiot Brexit voters and scheming Tories. Reap what you sow.
Good job turkeys. Well done. Thanks.
And the NHS is already collapsing. Make sure you dont get ill anymore.
This is incredibly depressing.
The NHS was the best thing about Britain. There was nothing like it out there.
It was heartwarming to see people from all over Europe fuelling such an important institution. I can't fucking believe this. This is a betrayal of British values.
I hope Scotland leaves, so that it can maintain its side of the NHS.
IIRC the NHS would suffer in Scotland would become independent. I imagine that (universal) free prescriptions would probably come to an end at least.
Free presciptions doesn't cost that much money when you factor in that you don't have to run a means testing system to see who is entitled to it.
Did you know 90% of prescriptions are free in England
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-charges-from-april-2014
I don't think it's funded entirely by Scotland, but the Scottish government have full control over its finances I believe.
The Scottish NHS is also the only part of the NHS in the UK which has actively had funding cut.
Oh I actually did not know this. I think I might actually qualify for the Low Income Scheme myself (although in the past 18 months I have spent exactly £25 on prescriptions).
A free trade deal for 10 years until things have been sorted out?
Unless the freedom of movement is also there for 10 years, doesn't seem right to me. The UK voted to leave the EU. I certainly am against it as an EU citizen.
Brexit means brexit, right. The four freedoms cannot be separated either.
Unless the freedom of movement is also there for 10 years, doesn't seem right to me. The UK voted to leave the EU. I certainly am against it as an EU citizen.
Brexit means brexit, right. The four freedoms cannot be separated either.
We haven't had as big a cut to social care and other lateral services though, it doesn't matter how much money the NHS gets if GPS are gutted, pharmacies are just desks for pills and social care is almost nonexistent.
That would be odd. Would they still follow all EU regulation, pay their due, free movement etc. for 10 years. I don't think the UK would be allowed a special relationship like that without the other things so UK makes moves to leave but never leaves.
That's on May to explain it to the EU.
Even if they agree i don't see how may will keep freedom of movement which will break this anyway
I can see why the UK and the WTO might want that. The case for the EU is far less clear cut. They'd essentially be giving the UK free full access for 10 years, that goes against everything they'd said, and fundamentally puts them in a weak position in terms of their internal politics.
Lets be honest there's not the political environment in the UK to allow free movement, the ECJ and a payment to the EU coffers for 10 years. And if the EU don't get those they've completely folded.
Lets be honest there's not the political environment in the UK to allow free movement, the ECJ and a payment to the EU coffers for 10 years. And if the EU don't get those they've completely folded.
Yeah. If it was a transitional arrangement for one or two years while the final touches get put on a mostly done trade deal, then the Express and Mail might not go nuclear. But ten years? They'd be calling for May's head, for Boris to step over May's corpse and enter 10 Downing Street. The right wingers in the Tory party would be going mental.
You know, it's baffling really. You have Eurosceptics saying that the EU should just be a trade organisation, that that's all it was when we joined, and that we should just treat international diplomacy with them on a purely transactional basis. But paying large sums into the EU coffers, especially for areas of shared interest (like border defence), which would be a great way for the UK to get what they want, is anathema to them.
Huw_Dawson
Member
At this point May's hand is limited to one card - a hard Brexit with some small trade deal to protect vital industries (I'd assume the financial passport and car manufacture).
The price she'll likely pay for this is going to be high, both internally and externally.
Talking at the Q&A yesterday, Farron commented that it's pretty obvious that if/when we finally leave the EU, the Lib Dems will be 100% for rejoining as a full member and will campaign as such. As he also posited, more people, and more young people, voted for Remain than any party has ever won in a GE.
So the major issue for May is not just A50 now. It is to engineer something not terrible that prevents a united wave of pro-EU sentiment from washing her and the Brexit project away - in 2020, 2025, 2030...
The price she'll likely pay for this is going to be high, both internally and externally.
Talking at the Q&A yesterday, Farron commented that it's pretty obvious that if/when we finally leave the EU, the Lib Dems will be 100% for rejoining as a full member and will campaign as such. As he also posited, more people, and more young people, voted for Remain than any party has ever won in a GE.
So the major issue for May is not just A50 now. It is to engineer something not terrible that prevents a united wave of pro-EU sentiment from washing her and the Brexit project away - in 2020, 2025, 2030...
I wish I shared your optimism.
CyclopsRock
Member
This is absurdly wishful thinking. Those young, anti-Brexit crowd weren't voting for the Tories anyway. The Conservatives got a majority without their vote.
perhaps in return May would be willing to have 'a reasonable time' to sort out the rest too - so they'd maintain freedom of movement too, while continuing to negotiate.
After all, this has never been triggered before, and the two year timeframe may or may not be wildly optimistic for the amount of work needed. It isn't in anyone's interest to apply a hard stop after 2 years if it is an unreasonable amount of time - and we won't know that until someone is the guinea pig.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked