Lisbon treaty - ratified?

[Pavlos]

What is it with this government and being anti-democratic? I suppose when you can more or less expect to lose the practice is to avoid the people at all costs. First the appointment without popular vote of a new 'leader', then more than once refusing to put a controversial treaty to the vote.

Under the constitutional settlement in the United Kingdom (after the Glorious Revolution of 1688), you vote for your individual parliamentary candidate. Modern British Politics has been dominated by parties (be they the Whigs, Tories, Liberals, or Labour, or something) so generally a candidate will run under the banner of a party, supporting a centrally agreed-on manifesto for office (which that party will push for regardless of whether or not it is in government). The formation of a government after a general election is down to the MPs (and, formally, the Lords but they're a bunch of yes-men these days) that have been elected and not to the people; generally that means the party with the largest number of seats (but not necessarily). The selection of who will be the Prime Minister (a position not outlined properly in law, it must be said) of that government, is a decision for the MPs of that "winning" party; the job commonly goes to the leader of the party; although he can, rather embarrassingly, lose his seat in the election. The decision as to who leads the party is a decision for the members of that party, not the citizens (or subjects as we used to be known) of the United Kingdom. You did not vote for or against Tony Blair unless you were registered on the electoral roll as voting in Sedgefield at the time of the last election. In the age of personality-driven politics that can become a little obscured (the media don't do anything to help that).

 

Now, we -- of an age in which the Prime Minister wields unprecedented power -- may dispute whether or not this is the correct way of doing business but until people actually kick up a fuss and cause the law to be changed (so as to separate the Prime Minister from the legislature or formally outline and limit the powers of the PM) nothing has been done wrong; the Labour party were perfectly within their rights, as were the Tories when John Major became another "unelected" Prime Minister. But educating people as to the way politics works in this country would run contrary to what politicians want: it would give them the ability to change the status quo.

Rather annoying that parts of my law course may be out of date not long after I graduate. And I really dislike the idea of doing away with unanimity for some issues. It may 'streamline' the EU's business, but it gives Sovereignty another heavy blow.

More to blame would be the governments of the past thirty years who all seem to be under the mystifying illusion that passing hundreds of short-sighted laws to appease readers of the tabloids is the same as running the country.

 

Now, in this economic mess, when they do actually seem to have a long-term view of the situation, people have no idea what to make of it.

 

I'm a dumb American, so could someone explain to me why it seems that everyone here has a strong dislike of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? I've heard of leaders making bad decisions and being corrupt pretty much everywhere, but what's the history behind Europe getting like this where everyone hates their governments?

I can't speak for Europe as a whole but people in Britain have always had a healthy distrust for politicians. Interviewers are little horrors here (and I believe the same is true of Ireland); the question is, do you want to be ripped apart by Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys.

; or the famous

.

[Totenkopf]

I can't speak for Europe as a whole but people in Britain have always had a healthy distrust for politicians. Interviewers are little horrors here (and I believe the same is true of Ireland); the question is, do you want to be ripped apart by Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys.

; or the famous

.

 

I'd like to see Paxman face himself. I'll have to take a look at Humphrys next.

 

..the news is supposed to be impartial. Particularly the BBC, but it is interesting to note that they only advertise jobs in The Guardian, which is notoriously left-wing.

 

Why am I not surprised.

[Darth InSidious]

Look, it's remarkably simple.

 

The country is divided into constituencies. For each constituency, one or more candidates stand, some of whom are selected by and stand for a party, whose manifesto they in theory support.

 

The candidate is elected according to the first-past-the-post system; that is to say, the person who wins the majority of the votes in that constituency. They are now the Member of Parliament for that constituency, and their party has one seat in the House of Commons.

 

The leader of the party with the most seats in the Commons then goes to Buckingham Palace (the 'h', incidentally, is silent) and is asked by the Queen to form a government. He then selects his ministers. In theory, he can choose from either the Lords or the Commons; in practice, he tends to choose members of the Commons,.

 

This man is then the 'Prime Minister'. Legally, however, there is no such position, and he is the First Lord of the Treasury, a somewhat archaic position which only has any significance when he sits in the Lords, in which case the Chancellor of the Exchequer represents the Treasury in the Commons.

 

The 'Prime Minister' is a non-existent title. It was first used as an insult to First Lords who had rather too much power. It is an historical anomaly that should not exist. But it does. He operates from No. 10 Downing Street, SW1.

 

He runs the government and sets policy, and in theory must answer questions from the rest of the Commons weekly. In practice, Blair cut the amount of time in half, and most of the answers consist of blaming the Opposition for the last time they were in power.

 

While it is usual nowadays for the Leader of a party to be in the Commons there is no legal bar on a member of the Lords from being Leader of a party or Prime Minister. However, since Prime Minister's Question Time takes place in the Commons, this does cause rather a strain, and he cannot debate in the lower house; the Lords cannot enter the Commons, and, except in unusual circumstances such as the opening of Parliament, neither can the Commons enter the Lords' chamber.

 

In recent years, the Commons has gained disproportionate power, and the Prime Minister has gained almost presidential powers.

 

Our parties are more-or-less arranged like yours; blame Benjamin Disraeli (no, really). Except not. The only really significant difference (aside from the totally different electoral system, traditions, and political culture) is, our politicians are expected to tell the truth, and the news is supposed to be impartial. Particularly the BBC, but it is interesting to note that they only advertise jobs in The Guardian, which is notoriously left-wing.

[Pavlos]

Particularly the BBC, but it is interesting to note that they only advertise jobs in The Guardian, which is notoriously left-wing.

It's also the only paper to have a specific "media" section, so their decision to advertise there may not be as anomalous as it seems.

 

Edit: Where else would they advertise? The Murdoch papers don't allow the mention of the BBC in a positive light; the Mail is not read by the sort of person you'd want working at the state broadcaster; perhaps the Telegraph but I never associate the Tory with media-types. Also, the Beeb's political editor was a Tory before he entered the media (the previous one having been a socialist >_>).

[ForeverNight]

This is a joke, correct? Lisbon is the kind of treaty that nobody but technocrats are expected to read as it's, designed to be hard to understand.

 

Nope, no joke. Just a deficiency of time on my hands.

 

Downloaded the PDF finally last night and it's only ~398 pages. So, assuming I can stomach the legalese long enough, I might be able to finish it over a weekend. As for the EU's website, I wish they didn't merge their area to download the PDF and ordering the hard copy of the treaty.