The Elections....

[Louis]

I give it 4 months before a General Election

[MikeO]

Bit different to when Tony Blair walked into Downing Street to huge partying crowds singing, "Things can only get Better."

 

Cameron was met by the press.

 

Confirmed that Clegg will be deputy PM and the Libdems will have another four cabinet posts.

 

Hope it works but I have my doubts, I give it more than four months though Louis...a year at least (they may even bring in a fixed term in which case it'll go the distance).

[CraccerC]

And yet as a blogger he doesn't rely on the system to employ him! He's just one of a long-line of "bloggers" that Sky News likes to put up on a pedastel as "real" journalists because Sky News have the "web's agenda".

 

Let's be honest here, if the General Election only consisted of voters who frequented the internet then there would be a Liberal landslide.

 

 

But Sky News like to bring on blind, unthinking Conservative attackdogs from the internet so that the Sky presenters don't seem so biased in comparison. I just heard one of the Sky presenters say: "Although a Conservative majority would have been the best result for the markets, a Con/Lib Dem alliance is the second best option"

 

They're not even hiding it anymore!

 

maybe you're reading a bit too much into that...i took the same quote as would be the best result when compared to a hung parliament

 

i think it's a bright day, as a conservative voter, i was deligted to see d-cam go into number 10. i think theres a lot of people who will change their mind abotu the conservatives over the next few years, change for the better.

[MikeO]

i think theres a lot of people who will change their mind abotu the conservatives over the next few years, change for the better.

It's very easy to appear impressive when you're in opposition Mike.

 

Many many people (millions) felt exactly the same when Blair came in, my wife and father-in-law among them and we had massive rows about it because I told them that it was not going to be at all what they hoped and expected. They called me a cynic (and much worse) but it came to pass as it surely will again .

My father-in-law (who's 85) was a lifelong Labour member who voted against them (for Libdem) for the first time in his life last week...wife voted Green.

 

Maybe the concensus nature of a coalition will change things, I truly hope so but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Be interesting to continue this in 2/3/4 years . See you there.

[CraccerC]

relatively speaking, i'm a newbie having only voted a couple times but i haven't done so without reading around and what not. i see whatyou're saying, and hopefully we'll be able to revisit this and i hope i'm right. i genuinely believe this is a move in the right direction though. there's no doubt labour did some good things in their run, but things had become a bit stagnant and a few too many mistakes over the latter half of their reign, includign the recession and the wars...can't be allowed to get away with that what message would that send?

 

obviously as a conservative member myself i have some bias, but in the grand scheme of things between the lib dems and the conservatives that's a massive majority in terms of votes (although not so bigin seats) so that's a lot of people who should in my opinion be relatively happy with a coalition, dependign on the outcome of the negotiations obviously. reports suggest that a concession has been made over the voting system promisign a referendum. a few days ago i was thinking to myself 'we'll see what lib dems and clegg are made of here, wil lthey put policy before britain' and i think that both sides have shown commitments to put differences aside in the best interest of britain and to form a stable government. i wasn't impressed with clegg but im pleased with what's being mentioned of late, i expected lib dems to stand firm by their policy and run to labour.

[Lowensda]

Now conservatives are in, the charity/volunteer sector is gonna fall on its arse. Loads of work colleagues will lose their jobs and I may not even have the funding accepted for furthering my post. Rich get richer. Poor get poorer. Thats the Torie way.

 

I don't have less respect for people who are conservative followers, as i respect all peoples views and opinions however IMO this is a terrible thing for my sector and work force...and for that, i was hoping a convinientaly placed sniper might have shot that smug prick before he got in the door. (If anyone watched 'Luther' last night, similar to the affect).

 

That didn't happen. Now all the hard work we've done helping disabled children and young people live independent lives and grow into strong personalities...is pretty much certainly going to be shot-to-shit.

 

I agree with Louis, there will be another General Election v.soon

Edited May 12, 2010 by tenaciousj

[MikeO]

Rich get richer. Poor get poorer. Thats the Torie way.

Historically that's true but with the Libdem influence who knows?

 

I actually stand to make a bit as the Tories have pledged to get the Equitable Life pension debacle sorted and those who've lost out compensated. I lost less than most but it's certainly five figures...which would be nice .

[Ian C]

Full text of the Coalition agreement HERE

 

 

Seems quite good to me.

[holystove]

Full text of the Coalition agreement HERE

 

 

Seems quite good to me.

 

I don't understand what it means to have "ultimate authority remaining with parliament" ? Does this extend to powers that are already transferred ? Does this mean that parliament ultimately decides on the scope of these competences ? Seems a very confusing sentence to me...

 

Was this explained in any of the debates ?

[CraccerC]

I don't understand what it means to have "ultimate authority remaining with parliament" ? Does this extend to powers that are already transferred ? Does this mean that parliament ultimately decides on the scope of these competences ? Seems a very confusing sentence to me...

 

Was this explained in any of the debates ?

 

i believe it means that we won't surrender power to the EU and that the british government will remain response for britain in that context. essentially we are an active member of the EU but we call the shots over british issues that we haven't transferred.

 

it was touched on in the debates because the lib dems are europhiles, they want to be part of the euro (ideally) and want to be more involved in europe and trade through europe and so on.

[holystove]

i believe it means that we won't surrender power to the EU and that the british government will remain response for britain in that context. essentially we are an active member of the EU but we call the shots over british issues that we haven't transferred.

 

Oh ok. I feared it could mean to imply that for example if British parliament didn't agree with the scope a European regulation, they would have the authority to decide that it doesn't apply even if it concerned a competence that had been fully transferred.

 

It's an empty statement then really. Much like when the Irish premier promised the Irish people that Irish sovereignty has remained intact thanks to the changes to the Lisbon treaty before the second Irish referendum. Thought that was hilarious.

[Ian C]

Incorrect, An Taoiseach guaranteed Irish sovereignty over competencies and issues that were not transferred by Lisbon. Abortion, tax, minimum wage etc.

 

In essence he guaranteed that Europe would not be able to transfer compentencies without referenda.

 

A perfectly legitimate statement, which says a lot as I despise Fianna Fail more than any other thing on this earth.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Grarghsies

[holystove]

Incorrect, An Taoiseach guaranteed Irish sovereignty over competencies and issues that were not transferred by Lisbon. Abortion, tax, minimum wage etc.

 

In essence he guaranteed that Europe would not be able to transfer compentencies without referenda.

 

That I agree with, but it's the link with sovereignty that was imo laughable. Referenda are not an expression of sovereignty but merely an expression of constitutional practice. Additionally, sovereignty as a barrier for the transfer of competences is based on a misconception of the notion of sovereignty. As a general statement about sovereignty, it can just as easily be said that the transfer of state competences is not a weakening of national sovereignty but can lead to strengthening it withing the joint action of an integrated Europe.

Also I find it tough to find the link between the sovereignty of a nation and individual competences such as regulation on abortion. If I were him, what I would have said is : "Ireland will continue to use the exceptions based on public policy provided for in the treaties to limit the European freedoms. And secondly, the Irish population will be consulted in case of further European integration." Instead he said "We will guarantee Irish sovereignty", which doesn't mean anything and is also very confusing, as both our interpretations show .

[Ian C]

He never said referenda were an expression of sovereignty, however they are a fully and completely democratic protector of our sovereignty. It ensures the Government cannot sign away more competencies without the support of the majority of the people.

 

Which in my interpretation, and in the interpretation of a large majority of the Irish people along with the 3 largest political parties, was taken to mean that Lisbon was Lisbon, and Lisbon didn't allow for the EU to take more compentencies than it had listed and were voted on in the Lisbon referenda.

[holystove]

You make the same mistake so I'll try to make my point of view more clear (this would be easier in Dutch btw ). but here goes:

 

Ireland claims it is sovereign. This implies that the origin of all powers exercised within the Irish territory derive from its people, the Irish (assuming you have a system of popular sovereignty). This means that any type of legislation, no matter where it originated from (EU or Irish Parliament) is traceable to the will of the Irish people.

 

Now let's look at this notion in a European context. Normally under international law you could say that the link with the sovereignty of Irish people is to be found in the fact that the treaties were approved by the Irish Parliament or through referendum if you wish. But given that the European Union is not a fixed "international organisation" but is rather defined as a project results in the fact that the treaties are not interpreted literally but in a teleological manner, meaning with the purpose of integration ("an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe" etc.). Therefor that link is broken. (paraphrasing an accepted theory here, could elaborate on this if you wish).

 

Now take for example that there is a European regulation based on a competence that is believed to be with the European Union through the interpretation of the treaties. In the Council the Irish minister is outvoted by the other ministers, and in the European Parliament, all the Irish MEP's are outvoted as well. At this point there will be binding law in Ireland without any link with Ireland, not through the ratification of the treaties, not through the involvement of the Irish in the drafting of the legislation. If the Irish government thinks that the regulation concerns a competence that was not transferred, the only court they could turn to for the protection of their "sovereignty" is the European court of justice, a -European- institution. Where has their sovereignty gone? In my opinion in regards to European integration the notion of sovereignty no longer applies.

 

UNLESS, Ireland hangs on to its sovereignty. At which point it could, based on its own constitutional structure which is for a nation that claims to be sovereign the basis for it's membership of the European Union, invoke this sovereignty to say that the legislation is not applicable in Ireland.

 

So that is what it would mean if he says "Irish sovereignty will be protected". It has nothing to do with referenda and has only marginal meaning in the case of the transfer of more competences if you accept that sovereignty can be split into little pieces each concerning a different issue. But then the notion would become meaningless (once again ).

 

If the political landscape as you said agrees with what he -meant- to say then it's fine. But then he should have said what I said in my previous posts and seeing how he used sovereignty to make his (political?) point, I said it was laughable. So there you go.

 

 

Anyway, I fear we've gone horrible off topic.

[Ian C]

But all Irish MEP's are members of European political parties which contain Irish MEP's, volunteers and workers. These parties are voted for by Irish voters and it will be these parties and groupings which will vote for or against legislation.

 

Which is meaningless as what Cowen meant by what he said was he would protect Irish sovereignty over issues we are sovereign. This was understood by everyone, as I believe it was in response to a question on the radio about abortion.

[holystove]

But all Irish MEP's are members of European political parties which contain Irish MEP's, volunteers and workers. These parties are voted for by Irish voters and it will be these parties and groupings which will vote for or against legislation.

 

Yes but obviously not with Irish interests in mind, which was the point.

 

Which is meaningless as what Cowen meant by what he said was he would protect Irish sovereignty over issues we are sovereign. This was understood by everyone, as I believe it was in response to a question on the radio about abortion.

 

Which is based on a wrong conception of sovereignty, as I said was my opinion in my previous post.. But it's certainly positive that is was understood by everyone .

[holystove]

Funny and sad at the same time.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1278734/Revealed-What-BNP-supporter-Wayne-Brown-said-enrage-Leicester-team-mates.html .