On 06/11/2013 08:58, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 05:16:14 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

So that's a "No".

OK, fine. So you'd restrict access to local services to people from
other areas _within_ the UK, in the same way as to people from other EU
countries? If so, then the EU is an irrelevance to your argument. Your
argument is against population mobility, full stop.

However in this case, is it not the EU that facilitated the mobility of
a population

Because, of course, people from Ireland, Scotland, the North of England,
the South West haven't been heading to the South East (or wherever else's
been perceived as lucrative) to seek their fortunes for FAR FAR longer
than the UK's been an EU member, have they?

They have, however the scale of the migration is what makes the current
situation different.


Turn again, Dick Whittington.

that found our lavish public services and benefits system particularly
attractive?

So you're suggesting that the government should make hefty cutbacks to
public services and benefits?

We can't actually fund those which we currently provide, so it seems we
have the option of generating more revenue, or reducing spending since
an ever increasing debt burden is not sustainable. The revenue raising
can only happen as a result of private sector wealth generation - and
there are practical limits (in a developed economy) as to how fast they
can scale. If they can't keep up with the spend rate on public sector
costs, then you are left with only one viable option.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 02/11/2013 07:42, harryagain wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 07:46:23 +0000, harryagain wrote:

It doesn't. Isn't it odd that, a quarter of a century ago, a big-name
right-wing Tory was calling for people to "get on their bike" and go
and chase jobs, rather than waiting for them to come to them. Now, it
appears that's a _bad_ thing in the eyes of the right-wing of the Tory
party...

If somebody's willing to get off their arse and turn their life upside-
down in a bid to earn money and change their family's lot, fair play to
'em. Does it really matter if they're going from Inverness, Kerry, or
Gdansk to London?

Going from?????

Are you a bit hard of thinking, Harry?

Well you can be going to or coming from.
But "Going from"?

Lets try it in a sentence shall we?

"Tomorrow, Harry will drive his electric car to the supermarket. If the
battery is not flat after that, he will be going from there to see his
psychiatrist in the next street. "




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:08:34 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

However in this case, is it not the EU that facilitated the mobility
of a population

Because, of course, people from Ireland, Scotland, the North of
England, the South West haven't been heading to the South East (or
wherever else's been perceived as lucrative) to seek their fortunes for
FAR FAR longer than the UK's been an EU member, have they?

They have, however the scale of the migration is what makes the current
situation different.

No, it really isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_m..._Great_Britain
10% of British people have at least one Irish grand parent.

To put that into proportion, even the Daily Wail estimates a million
"Eastern Europeans" are in the UK - 10yrs after the start of the
accession wave. That's an average of only about half the net migrants to
the UK each year, about one quarter of the annual population growth - or
about one eighth of the number of births in the country each year.

that found our lavish public services and benefits system particularly
attractive?

So you're suggesting that the government should make hefty cutbacks to
public services and benefits?

We can't actually fund those which we currently provide, so it seems we
have the option of generating more revenue, or reducing spending since
an ever increasing debt burden is not sustainable. The revenue raising
can only happen as a result of private sector wealth generation - and
there are practical limits (in a developed economy) as to how fast they
can scale. If they can't keep up with the spend rate on public sector
costs, then you are left with only one viable option.

I wonder how you viewed yesterday's news that recent EU migrants have
contributed more to the exchequer, per capita and relative to benefits
claimed, than "native" Britons?

On 29/10/2013 15:15, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:11:37 +0000, Capitol wrote:

Sounds to me like standardisation might be a good plan...

Yes if it worked! We all have come across toilets which don't work. My
childhood memories fail to register a high level 2 gallon toilet which
didn't.

Now why would anybody install, and then leave, a toilet that didn't work?

You are misreading "don't work".

There are plenty about that technically work (i.e. flush and refill),
but seem incapable of clearing the content of the bowl even with
repeated flushing, or have other undesirable characteristics that are
not apparent until actually installed somewhere other than a showroom.

Personally I loathe the top mounted push button cisterns currently
being sold.

So don't buy one. They're not the only ones being sold.

That they are being sold will often dictate you will end up needing to
use one installed somewhere where you were not granted the purchasing
decision.

I would prefer that all toilets had to pass a customer function test
before being allowed to be sold.

I rather suspect they all work on installation, and it's merely a
question of lack of maintenance and repair in the interim.

Can't say I was that impressed with the basic design of the B&Q bog I
installed in one place. Looked nice, flush also worked ok, but someone
had got the basic geometry of the human anus sadly wrong, ensuring that
the water trap was highly unlikely to even find itself directly beneath
it. Net result was a pan that needed brushing pretty much every time
someone dropped the lads off at the pool.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 30/10/2013 18:14, harryagain wrote:
"Java Jive" wrote in message
news
What is the worst thing that has happened in this country since? 7/7
probably, or the Marchioness disaster, or the people killed by storm
damage in 1987 and a few days ago, or the people killed on the roads,
or by avoidably by lung cancer, etc, etc? The EU has nothing to do
with any of these things.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:03:17 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

Many of them because of the EU.

We would be able to deport foreign criminals for a start.

If we knew where they were...

We would not have all these stupid regulations for another.

That is debatable.

One of the failures of legislators is that they seem to judge their
performance by the quantity of legislation they generate. It takes much
bolder and unconstrained individuals to decide that the status quo is
actually better than more legislation in the face of vociferous
campaigns from self interest groups demanding the "governement" "do
something".


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 30/10/2013 22:15, Java Jive wrote:

each of the rest received less than half of what we
did:

When you say "received" do you mean received in the sense of "got some
of our payments into the EU refunded"? Or, are you suggesting that we
were nett recipients of funds from the EU?




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 31/10/2013 19:56, Java Jive wrote:

If they want to work rather than rot on the dole, they will need to
get fit by continuing at the work rather than by giving up.

While fine in principle, there is the difficulty of finding someone
prepared to carry less that adequately productive individuals for long
enough to allow that to happen.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 06/11/13 17:37, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/10/2013 18:14, harryagain wrote:
"Java Jive" wrote in message
news
What is the worst thing that has happened in this country since? 7/7
probably, or the Marchioness disaster, or the people killed by storm
damage in 1987 and a few days ago, or the people killed on the roads,
or by avoidably by lung cancer, etc, etc? The EU has nothing to do
with any of these things.

On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 09:03:17 -0000, "harryagain"
wrote:

Many of them because of the EU.

We would be able to deport foreign criminals for a start.

If we knew where they were...

We would not have all these stupid regulations for another.

That is debatable.

One of the failures of legislators is that they seem to judge their
performance by the quantity of legislation they generate. It takes much
bolder and unconstrained individuals to decide that the status quo is
actually better than more legislation in the face of vociferous
campaigns from self interest groups demanding the "governement" "do
something".


that's when you create a new Act that essentially 'repeals' tons of
pre-existing garbage that proved to be more or less completely useless.

Te problem today is that if it contravenes a EU Directive*, or worse, a
Regulation**, its pretty much ultra vires***.

* a Directive is an EU decree that parliament gets to rubber stamp.
** a Regulation is an EU decree that happens without parliament even
debating it.
*** Ultre vires is a legal term meaning 'you didn't have the authority
for that, and it is therefore null and void and never legally happened'.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

I mean as per the EU expenditure page that I linked.

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:39:50 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

When you say "received" do you mean received in the sense of "got some
of our payments into the EU refunded"? Or, are you suggesting that we
were nett recipients of funds from the EU?
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

To return to facts (remember them?) ...

http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/introduct...ulation_en.htm

What are EU regulations?

Regulations are the most direct form of EU law - as soon as they are
passed, they have binding legal force throughout every Member State,
on a par with national laws. National governments do not have to take
action themselves to implement EU regulations.

They are different from directives, which are addressed to national
authorities, who must then take action to make them part of national
law, and decisions, which apply in specific cases only, involving
particular authorities or individuals.

Regulations are passed either jointly by the EU Council and European
Parliament, and by the Commission alone.

What are EU directives?

EU directives lay down certain end results that must be achieved in
every Member State. National authorities have to adapt their laws to
meet these goals, but are free to decide how to do so. Directives may
concern one or more Member States, or all of them.

Each directive specifies the date by which the national laws must be
adapted - giving national authorities the room for manoeuvre within
the deadlines necessary to take account of differing national
situations.

Directives are used to bring different national laws into line with
each other, and are particularly common in matters affecting the
operation of the single market (e.g. product safety standards).

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:44:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

* a Directive is an EU decree that parliament gets to rubber stamp.
** a Regulation is an EU decree that happens without parliament even
debating it.
*** Ultre vires is a legal term meaning 'you didn't have the authority
for that, and it is therefore null and void and never legally happened'.


--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 22:43:51 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

And by the Commission alone. So the Commission can make a regulation,
and that is then *law* in the member states, is that what you are
saying?

I was merely correcting TNP's misdescribing of the exact nature of the
two.

Explain how that differs from the situation that that nice Mr Hitler
found himself in after he had pushed his Enabling Act through in 1934
or so.

The EU Commission is not Hitler. QED.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 06/11/2013 17:08, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:08:34 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

However in this case, is it not the EU that facilitated the mobility
of a population

Because, of course, people from Ireland, Scotland, the North of
England, the South West haven't been heading to the South East (or
wherever else's been perceived as lucrative) to seek their fortunes for
FAR FAR longer than the UK's been an EU member, have they?

They have, however the scale of the migration is what makes the current
situation different.

No, it really isn't.

Yes it really is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_m..._Great_Britain
10% of British people have at least one Irish grand parent.

And the total population of the (what would become) UK then was what?

To put that into proportion, even the Daily Wail estimates a million
"Eastern Europeans" are in the UK - 10yrs after the start of the
accession wave. That's an average of only about half the net migrants to
the UK each year, about one quarter of the annual population growth - or
about one eighth of the number of births in the country each year.

and which groups have the highest birth rates?

that found our lavish public services and benefits system particularly
attractive?

So you're suggesting that the government should make hefty cutbacks to
public services and benefits?

We can't actually fund those which we currently provide, so it seems we
have the option of generating more revenue, or reducing spending since
an ever increasing debt burden is not sustainable. The revenue raising
can only happen as a result of private sector wealth generation - and
there are practical limits (in a developed economy) as to how fast they
can scale. If they can't keep up with the spend rate on public sector
costs, then you are left with only one viable option.

I wonder how you viewed yesterday's news that recent EU migrants have
contributed more to the exchequer, per capita and relative to benefits
claimed, than "native" Britons?

I must have missed that, however its still not solving the real problem
though is it? When you have areas where you can't get school places,
housing, access to medical care etc simply because the local population
has expanded way beyond that capacity of the local infrastructure.

I personally have respect for economic migrants - it takes a certain
amount of determination to uproot your entire family and move somewhere
unknown in search of life offering better opportunities. This is not to
say that one should dismantle boarder controls completely, or that
nations such as the UK which will be viewed my many as a land of
opportunity can withstand unfettered immigration. The EU ideal of free
movement of population works when you have a group of member countries
which can be viewed (at least on a broad scale) as largely equal in
terms of availability of work, and welfare. If fails when you have
member countries joining at a significantly different level of
industrial / commercial development.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 30/10/2013 01:18, Java Jive wrote:

On 29 Oct 2013 22:30:39 GMT, Huge wrote:

Except that wasn't a vote for the EU

It was a vote to remain in the EU, so I find it difficult to conceive
how it could possibly be interpreted as anything other than a vote for
the EU.

I am too young to remember much of the detail, but I only recall talk at
the time of voting to enter/stay in the common market. No mention of the
EU or similar terminology. I get the string impression that is how
people at the time perceived what was on offer.

Even a decade or more later, when Mrs Thatcher highlighted that the
whole purpose of the EU dream from the outset was one of political
union, the deniers claimed that was not the case and that she was simply
being irrational etc. At least now they seem more open to admitting that
as the goal.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:23:21 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

Except that wasn't a vote for the EU

It was a vote to remain in the EU, so I find it difficult to conceive
how it could possibly be interpreted as anything other than a vote
for the EU.

I am too young to remember much of the detail, but I only recall talk at
the time of voting to enter/stay in the common market. No mention of the
EU or similar terminology. I get the string impression that is how
people at the time perceived what was on offer.

Because, at the time, it was called the "European Economic Community",
nicknamed "common market". The name change to "European Union" came later
- but the details which people seem to be objecting to (principally free
movement of people) were integral from the founding in the late '50s.

The hard-of-thinking/Daily-Wail-gullible usually conflate the totally
separate European Convention on Human Rights, forgetting that the UK was
instrumental in creating that in the 1950s, and that the much-loathed
Human Rights Act merely allows breaches of the ECHR to be prosecuted in
British courts rather than having to be escalated to the European Court
of Human Rights. Strangely, none of them can ever point to which articles
of the convention they object to, either.

The two things that he misdescribed! Regulations and directives.

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 21:47:13 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

The exact nature of the two /what/ ??
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:23:21 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

I am too young to remember much of the detail, but I only recall talk at
the time of voting to enter/stay in the common market. No mention of the
EU or similar terminology. I get the string impression that is how
people at the time perceived what was on offer.

I can remember it well enough. The Common Market came to be rebadged
as the European Union, I didn't and don't see that as a problem or as
being misleading.

Even a decade or more later, when Mrs Thatcher highlighted that the
whole purpose of the EU dream from the outset was one of political
union, the deniers claimed that was not the case and that she was simply
being irrational etc. At least now they seem more open to admitting that
as the goal.

Margaret Thatcher was simply a Euro-sceptic, like many here. It is
interesting that despite this, she didn't take us out of Europe. That
suggests to me that she saw that there were good reasons for staying
in.

Perhaps those good reasons haven't changed ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24859486
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

We have to stay in carefully, that is much less likely to end in
tears.

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:46:35 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

We have to walk carefully away, because it will end in tears.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 08/11/2013 12:12, Java Jive wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:23:21 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

I am too young to remember much of the detail, but I only recall talk at
the time of voting to enter/stay in the common market. No mention of the
EU or similar terminology. I get the string impression that is how
people at the time perceived what was on offer.

I can remember it well enough. The Common Market came to be rebadged
as the European Union, I didn't and don't see that as a problem or as
being misleading.

I see it as a fundamental shift, and at the root of the current problems.

Even a decade or more later, when Mrs Thatcher highlighted that the
whole purpose of the EU dream from the outset was one of political
union, the deniers claimed that was not the case and that she was simply
being irrational etc. At least now they seem more open to admitting that
as the goal.

Margaret Thatcher was simply a Euro-sceptic, like many here. It is
interesting that despite this, she didn't take us out of Europe. That
suggests to me that she saw that there were good reasons for staying
in.

Perhaps those good reasons haven't changed ...

They haven't - there are good reasons remaining for being "in". However
there are also many reasons for being "out". One has to decide which way
the balance tips. To my mind the balance is tipping progressively more
"out" as time passes.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 08/11/2013 08:28, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:23:21 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

Except that wasn't a vote for the EU

It was a vote to remain in the EU, so I find it difficult to conceive
how it could possibly be interpreted as anything other than a vote
for the EU.

I am too young to remember much of the detail, but I only recall talk at
the time of voting to enter/stay in the common market. No mention of the
EU or similar terminology. I get the string impression that is how
people at the time perceived what was on offer.

Because, at the time, it was called the "European Economic Community",
nicknamed "common market". The name change to "European Union" came later
- but the details which people seem to be objecting to (principally free
movement of people) were integral from the founding in the late '50s.

They may well have been. Remember though it was not simply a case of
browsing a web page if you wanted to call up the text of the agreement,
and read it for yourself.

The population was largely dependant on what the politicians told them,
and what was reported in the media.

The hard-of-thinking/Daily-Wail-gullible usually conflate the totally
separate European Convention on Human Rights, forgetting that the UK was
instrumental in creating that in the 1950s, and that the much-loathed
Human Rights Act merely allows breaches of the ECHR to be prosecuted in
British courts rather than having to be escalated to the European Court
of Human Rights. Strangely, none of them can ever point to which articles
of the convention they object to, either.

Interesting interpretation. However I suspect that most objections to
the "Human Rights Act" are in fact to the UK act of 1998, and act which
makes it illegal for any public body to contravene the ECHR unless
explicitly supported by national legislation. Hence all the uses of it
by prisoners demanding a vote, or terrorists not wanting to be deported
etc.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 08/11/2013 12:15, Java Jive wrote:

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:46:35 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

We have to walk carefully away, because it will end in tears.

We have to stay in carefully, that is much less likely to end in
tears.

I expect many would actually agree with that, if its an allowable
option. However it requires fundamental changes to the nature of the EU
as an institution and what membership actually means.

There is no guarantee that that level of change can be negotiated. Hence
the option to "stay in carefully" may be denied us, then what?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:17:21 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

The hard-of-thinking/Daily-Wail-gullible usually conflate the totally
separate European Convention on Human Rights, forgetting that the UK
was instrumental in creating that in the 1950s, and that the
much-loathed Human Rights Act merely allows breaches of the ECHR to be
prosecuted in British courts rather than having to be escalated to the
European Court of Human Rights. Strangely, none of them can ever point
to which articles of the convention they object to, either.

Interesting interpretation.

Where "interesting" = "accurate".

However I suspect that most objections to the "Human Rights Act" are in
fact to the UK act of 1998

Umm, yes, isn't that what you're replying to?

and act which makes it illegal

It already was, since 1953.

for any public body to contravene the ECHR unless explicitly supported
by national legislation.

The Convention restricts most articles with...
"such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection
of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights
and freedoms of others."

So - just to recap - which of the articles of the convention do you
object to?

Oh, and you do know that the only countries in the vaguely-geographical
continent which aren't legally bound to the convention are the Vatican,
Kazakhstan and Bieloruss, yep?

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:46:35 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

... the unelected Commission.

The commission might not be directly elected, but each commissioner is
appointed by the elected government of a member country.

On 08/11/2013 18:10, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 16:17:21 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

The hard-of-thinking/Daily-Wail-gullible usually conflate the totally
separate European Convention on Human Rights, forgetting that the UK
was instrumental in creating that in the 1950s, and that the
much-loathed Human Rights Act merely allows breaches of the ECHR to be
prosecuted in British courts rather than having to be escalated to the
European Court of Human Rights. Strangely, none of them can ever point
to which articles of the convention they object to, either.

Interesting interpretation.

Where "interesting" = "accurate".

Makes you wonder why the opening text of the 1998 act is "An Act to give
further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European
Convention on Human Rights". If we go with your interpretation it would
have been a fairly pointless and much shorter document.

However I suspect that most objections to the "Human Rights Act" are in
fact to the UK act of 1998

Umm, yes, isn't that what you're replying to?

You seemed to be talking about ECHR created in the 50's

and act which makes it illegal

It already was, since 1953.

Its funny, but I don't recall the "right to a family life" and other
nebulous concepts being cited in legal cases prior to 1998... why is that?

Could it be that its the 1998 legislation that introduces the facility
for a local court to declare that national legislation is "incompatible"
with ECHR, and thus open to many further layers of appeal, which may
ultimately result in the will of our parliament being disregarded, and
more to the point add many years of legal argument and extra cost to a
case...

Its a very nice gravy train for those in the legal profession I am sure.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 23:56:10 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

... the unelected Commission.

The commission might not be directly elected, but each commissioner is
appointed by the elected government of a member country.

It's still unelected

In the same way as the cabinet is.

and the electorate is not in a position to get rid of them.

All commissioners have a fixed five year term of office. The electorate
is not in a position to get rid of MPs outside of their fixed term,
either.

That is where our system scores: the electorate can get rid of any
politician it doesn't like. Oh, I was forgetting: except for MEPs, who
are elected using one of the ****ty continental systems - the PR list
system (which doesn't have by elections).

Short of murdering an incumbent, a Westminster by-election is not in the
gift of the electorate.

On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 09:57:03 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

... the unelected Commission.

The commission might not be directly elected, but each commissioner
is appointed by the elected government of a member country.

It's still unelected

In the same way as the cabinet is.

Don't be silly. The cabinet is made up of elected MPs, each of whom may
be removed subsequently by the electorate.

At the end of parliament's fixed five-year term. B'sides, the cabinet can
- and often does - contain members of the Lords, too.

That is where our system scores: the electorate can get rid of any
politician it doesn't like. Oh, I was forgetting: except for MEPs,
who are elected using one of the ****ty continental systems - the PR
list system (which doesn't have by elections).

Short of murdering an incumbent, a Westminster by-election is not in
the gift of the electorate.

You do come up with some non-sequiturs, don't you.

I'm not the one who suggested byelections were a way to get shot of MPs.