Re: Hypocrisy Democracy

They do not need to. You only devaluate your currency if you need to spend more than you are aerning.

Re: Hypocrisy Democracy

You also need to do it for a number of other things, offset debt, balance the books etc etc

Of course, the Eurozone can't do any of that ... unlike the rest of the world.

Re: Hypocrisy Democracy

A BIG PICTURE;

For instance, the shares of the euro in global payments and in global foreign exchange settlements increased noticeably in the second quarter of 2017. Portfolio inflows into euro area equities were as high as they ever have been since the advent of the euro in 1999, on the back of the growth momentum in the euro area economy, which supported the interest of foreign investors in euro area equity markets.

Blinkers my boy, take them off and stop reading comics.

Re: Hypocrisy Democracy

Economics not comics

Big difference... just saying

Re: Hypocrisy Democracy

Cameron called a referendum for his own party political reasons, not for any love of democracy.

And the plain fact remains that (for the upteenth time) the UK is governed by Parliament, not by referenda.

Re: Hypocrisy Democracy

[QUOTE=OldFogey;1655017]Cameron called a referendum for his own party political reasons, not for any love of democracy.

And the plain fact remains that (for the upteenth time) the UK is governed by Parliament, not by referenda.[/Why David Cameron had to call an EU referendum

25981415110_29b9feb71a_b

In his first conference speech as leader, David Cameron urged the Conservative Party to stop “banging on” about Europe. Why then did a Prime Minister who identified early the political dangers of talking about Europe call a referendum that ultimately led to his resignation?

One explanation lays in the increasing difficulty politicians have found in arguing against EU referendum.

In a recent study published in Quality & Quantity we extracted MPs’ patterns of argumentation about the use of the referendum across thousands of pages of parliamentary debates and analysed them using both statistical and qualitative analysis.

Harder to argue against a referendum on the EU

Analysing debates across four decades (1974-2010) we found that it is increasingly difficult for politicians to argue against the use of the referendum to settle important EU questions. While 25 different reasons were invoked to counter the use of the referendum in parliamentary debates in the 1970s, this dropped to 10 reasons in 2010.

For instance, although quite common in the 1970s, the claim that the people lack the requisite knowledge to adequately take part in decision-making is now a lot more difficult to make by MPs.

Some arguments – i.e. the view that referendums reinforce the status quo and the view that referendums jeopardise the relationship between constituents and elected representatives have almost disappeared from the current debates.

A new type of democratic settlement?

Our results suggest that for a long time, the choice between realising participatory ideals and advancing the European project raised a serious dilemma to political representatives. The prevailing view was that citizen input on the EU project would forestall progress towards EU integration. Accordingly, support for European integration often mattered more than support for participatory ideals.

But, the decrease in the number of arguments expressed by political representatives against the use of referendum to settle European questions over the last 20 years, along with the gradual increase in referendums on other matters eg devolutions referendums suggest that participatory values and devices are progressively becoming part of the political culture in the UK.

Denying the right for a referendum on the EU became harder when people were being offered a choice on other issues – there were no referenda in the UK before 1973 and there have been eleven since.

This constitutes an important departure from the traditional Burkean view of democracy which has informed British political culture for more than three centuries and, according to which — political representatives’ responsibility is to make decisions on behalf of the people and independently from the views of their constituents.

Rather, it seems politicians are now more and more influenced by a Lockean view of democracy according to which — the establishment of a representative democracy does not imply that the people have given up their rights in absolute terms, but that they have simply transferred the execution of their rights legitimately to another body.

Hence, when matters of great importance arise deferring decision-making to the people is a duty rather than an option. David Cameron found out to his cost that the British public and their representatives now agree that big constitutional decisions should be made directly by the people.The

Re: Hypocrisy Democracy

The problem with all of that is, as the Brexiteers have found out, and will continue to find out - it won't end here! - that one referendum begets another. You finish up going round and round in circles.

This is why even someone as archly Eurosceptical as Margaret Hilda Thatcher - remember that bag? - time after time refused to hold referenda on all kinds of issues: capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia. She stood at the despatch box in the HOC and reminded Honourable Members that the UK is governed by Parliament, not by referenda.

If, as it appears, you want to change that, then (ironically) you are advocating a very "European" as opposed to British style of government. A strange stance for persons thinking (incorrectly) that they are "patriotic" and "John Bullish". They are not. If they want THAT form of government they can always emigrate and mingle harmoniously with their co-thinkers o the Continent, leaving true patriots like Jeremy Corbyn to call, rightly, for a General Election - the true, traditional British way of doing things.

Re: Hypocrisy Democracy

Governing a country is an ongoing proces where yesterdays decisions are overturned today, based on new insights. That is too difficult to grapple by the average civilian, as is dramatically shown by the rigidity of brexiters in rejecting another referendum.

Re: Hypocrisy Democracy

From post 1 by fosterbrad

Quote "The UK electorate deserve another people’s vote on EU membership" unquote.


And then the loosers of that vote will demand another vote. No this is woolly thinking . We voted and that is how it should remain, or we can keep on voting until the cows come home

.

Re: Hypocrisy Democracy

[QUOTE=realspeed
And then the loosers of that vote will demand another vote. No this is woolly thinking . We voted and that is how it should remain, or we can keep on voting until the cows come home

‘Part and parcel’ of living in a pluralistic democracy like the UK, is the inalienable right we have as citizens to freely and publicly express ones opinions and views, political and/or otherwise . This also includes the right to change one views and opinions. A society which neither recognises and/or allows such freedoms is an ‘autocracy’ (absolute state authority - tyranny). As a true believer in the principle of free democracy I subscribe to the former.