Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Vote Leave vote down £350 million and don't give a **** Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    The question is not whether democracy sucks but whether the alternatives are any better.

    What is the alternative? one man rule? rule by technocrats? mixed - i.e. technocrats in some areas + dictator in others?
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_republicanism

    One of the reasons why I like the idea of the EU although it could equally be applicable to the UK.

    There needs to be some democracy sure but on its own it has the potential to be worse than the most corrupt monarchies.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_republicanism

    One of the reasons why I like the idea of the EU although it could equally be applicable to the UK.

    There needs to be some democracy sure but on its own it has the potential to be worse than the most corrupt monarchies.
    That doesn't answer my question and it also doesn't help you in decrying democracy as "mob rule" 'cos republics have significant democracy in them. So either you didn't really mean that democracy is "mob rule" or you meant that direct democracy is mob rule (but ofc direct democracy isn't the only kind of democracy nor even the best kind or the most popular in the West right now).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    It was a pledge repeatedly made by key members of the leave campaign who were also members of the governing party. They knew if we left they'd be in a position to vote for extra NHS funding yet they've all voted against.

    It's simply lying.

    Boris Johnson campaigned on giving the NHS more money and has now voted to stop it getting more money...
    The bill said 350m not more money and anyway I've given my reasons already


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    The bill said 350m not more money and anyway I've given my reasons already


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The poster and claim they championed said £350 million.

    Both were in a position to stick to their pledge. Both did the opposite.

    If you don't see anything with wrong with spending months saying 'let's fund our NHS if we vote our' and then choosing not to fund it, then there isn't much hope.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The poster and claim they championed said £350 million.

    Both were in a position to stick to their pledge. Both did the opposite.

    If you don't see anything with wrong with spending months saying 'let's fund our NHS if we vote our' and then choosing not to fund it, then there isn't much hope.
    In their tv debates and literature it suggested 100m.

    Like I've already said the bus advertisement suggested extra funding not 350m


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Naveed-7)
    NHS WILL get money after Brexit is completed. It might not be £350 million but it WILL be some where close to that. £290 million more or less is better than nothing. Remember that mate.

    Brexit is beautiful A lot has been taken away from UK by being part of the European Union and it is now time for us to take back control.

    I remember watching this video before the referendum and I still think it is beautifully right in what it says. They are making profit and the amount of money wasted on maintaining those buildings says alot:

    I feel sorry for you if you genuinely believe that.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    In their tv debates and literature it suggested 100m.

    Like I've already said the bus advertisement suggested extra funding not 350m


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Exactly, their statement was actually true, just the implications weren't. But do you seriously think the actual figure (considering it's 100s of millions per week) changed a single vote?? 350million is currently sent there a week (it would have increased after 2020), we get about a quarter back through the rebate (which isn't guaranteed), about another quarter is spent on subsides where they tell us how to spend our own taxes, putting up signs over the countryside saying 'thank the EU'!!
    The rest is spend on the failing Eurozone and to fund the millionaire lifestyles of the bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg.

    Luckily the people rejected Project fear and voted to leave. The reverse of that prohesised doom has actually happened.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    It said let's fund our NHS instead it's supposed to imply extra funding without saying how much.
    Vote Leave Co-Chair, Gisela Stuart, said (of the £350 million):

    "I'd rather that we control how to spend that money, and if I had that control I would spend it on the NHS."

    That sounds a lot like she was saying she'd spend the whole lot. She didn't say 'I would spend some of it on the NHS.'
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Vote Leave Co-Chair, Gisela Stuart, said (of the £350 million):

    "I'd rather that we control how to spend that money, and if I had that control I would spend it on the NHS."

    That sounds a lot like she was saying she'd spend the whole lot. She didn't say 'I would spend some of it on the NHS.'
    And that's why we have general elections. Once our government is sovereign again the people will vote on how to set and spend taxes. It's called democracy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DavidSilvaMCFC)
    This is exactly what it was for many people.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james813)
    And that's why we have general elections. Once our government is sovereign again the people will vote on how to set and spend taxes. It's called democracy.
    Yep because there isn't the Gisela Stuart party in government.

    She's welcome to start one and get 301 MPs in 2020


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RainbowMan)
    That doesn't answer my question
    It does kinda. You asked me if I'm wanted a mixed system which a classical republic is.

    and it also doesn't help you in decrying democracy as "mob rule" 'cos republics have significant democracy in them.
    Debateable. Sure there's some but there's also an undemocratic part too.

    So either you didn't really mean that democracy is "mob rule" or you meant that direct democracy is mob rule (but ofc direct democracy isn't the only kind of democracy nor even the best kind or the most popular in the West right now).
    All democracy is essentially mob rule- although referendums are by far and away the worst as there's no filter.

    It's a necessary evil at best- same with government and taxes and should be kept to a minimum.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Yep because there isn't the Gisela Stuart party in government.

    She's welcome to start one and get 0 MPs in 2020


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Fixed that for you
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james813)
    And that's why we have general elections. Once our government is sovereign again the people will vote on how to set and spend taxes. It's called democracy.
    Once again. Our parliament was always sovereign. If we weren't we wouldn't have been able to leave. The majority of our MPs we elected were prior to brexit pro remain. It's called democracy.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Once again. Our parliament was always sovereign. If we weren't we wouldn't have been able to leave. The majority of our MPs we elected were prior to brexit pro remain. It's called democracy.

    Incorrect I'm afraid. When the unelected commission of the EU creates legislation, no member state can overrule it (even if every MP supported so). Westminister is therefore less powerful and not sovereign, except on some areas like defence. You are right to say the only way we can change that is by leaving, which is permitted currently (but the EU wants to class pro-exit groups as terrorists and ban them).
    Our "first-past-the-post" system is way outdated and doesn't work when parties can get 4million votes but 1 MP. And the political class who make up most of the Labour and Conservative parties are parachuted into safe seats after leaving Eton and Oxford. A kind of democracy still.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james813)
    IWhen the unelected commission of the EU creates legislation, no member state can overrule it (even if every MP supported so)
    Correct, (though it is scrutinised and can be blocked by the council of Europe and the European Parliament)

    My point is that is the country is still sovereign as it can still leave, the entirety say of say German MPs may be against one or even several parts of EU legislation but still think it's in their best interests overall.


    . Westminister is therefore less powerful and not sovereign, except on some areas like defence.
    It is certainly less sovereign (but not by the overblown standards of the DM) I think eurosceptics are confusing flexibility with power , the EU can certainly be unwieldy but I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to how the UK would be more powerful than a united Europe:


    (but the EU wants to class pro-exit groups as terrorists and ban them).
    Citation needed
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james813)
    Incorrect I'm afraid. When the unelected commission of the EU creates legislation, no member state can overrule it (even if every MP supported so). Westminister is therefore less powerful and not sovereign, except on some areas like defence. You are right to say the only way we can change that is by leaving, which is permitted currently (but the EU wants to class pro-exit groups as terrorists and ban them).
    Our "first-past-the-post" system is way outdated and doesn't work when parties can get 4million votes but 1 MP. And the political class who make up most of the Labour and Conservative parties are parachuted into safe seats after leaving Eton and Oxford. A kind of democracy still.
    Proportional representation would be much more democratic.


    Spoiler:
    Show

    Like the European Parliament.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Citation needed


    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...ch-eurosceptic
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Fair enough.

    As one of the people quoted in the article says thus is a problem for all European/ western countries under threat from terrorism. I would argue that legislation would be easier to implement in a single state than in a multilateral organisation in which its encumbersomeness would act as a barrier as it would have to seek a majority in the Europe parliament and council of Europe. You might think the Uzk would never adopt such legislation but you forget this is the country that continually re elected New Labour.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.