Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

PokeHerKing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370629#Comment_121370629

I don't agree. I'm certainly lucky to live in the west and imo probably the best Western country of them all (weather excluded) but that doesn't mean democracy is real.

Just means our illusion of it satisfies the majority of us.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370734#Comment_121370734

Saying tartly that it's an illusion doesn't make it so though. It's a lazy argument.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370734#Comment_121370734

Saying it is doesn't make it so: FPTP is certainly a subtly anti-democratic system in that it can reward a minority party with governance, but saying the whole concept is an illusion is glib and trite - unless you're at least gonna expand on that idea of why it's an illusion.

PokeHerKing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370746#Comment_121370746

Rules made by elected officials to allow unelected officials govern is quite clearly an example of the illusion.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370771#Comment_121370771

I'm not interested in another pithy comment. I'd prefer to have a cogent argument to engage with.

PokeHerKing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370796#Comment_121370796

I don't know why you engaged if you're not interested. My point is crystal clear.

Argue against it or ignore, makes no odds to me.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370825#Comment_121370825

You're point isn't clear at all: you simply said "Democracy is an illusion" then walked away, citing a fairly superficial example without actually elaborating. Are you under the believe that "democracy" requires every single decision by government to go to a popular vote? Cos otherwise I'm unsure why you think it's an illusion, or indeed why you think any decision taken by government, one elected with the consent of its people to rule in its stead, is somehow anti-democratic or illusory. As I said, you're being glib and a little hubristic from the point of view of someone comfortable ina democracy.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370825#Comment_121370825

To see if you were going to invest any effort. Since it appears not, let's just leave it there since glib comments do not constitute a point.

Apparently, one of David Cameron's reasons for returning was that he was "bored sh*tless". I don't link to The Express but I'll leave the headline here:

The depressing thing is that it's probably the best motivation I can see in any of the government at the moment.

PokeHerKing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370836#Comment_121370836

Democracy = Elected officials.

It's not the same as saying popular vote for every decision by elected officials.

If you get elected and then can make rules to allow unelected officials govern you're really into a game of smoke amd mirrors. This is just one fairly cut and dry case imo.

We don't need to go down the road of whataboutery. We can absolutely take this one example amd say that's undemocratic at the highest level of Democracy.

I choose to see that as an example of the illusion of democracy. You may see it as a simple flaw in the democratic process or you may see no issue. To each his own. I'm not trying to convert.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370859#Comment_121370859

Well you seem to think "democracy" must then entail that every decision be an election put to the people for the threat of illusion to be negated. Not that there aren't examples of more "direct democracy" in action like in Switzerland or various parts of the US, but the wording you choose reads distinctly evocative and inflammatory of sorts to call the system an "illusion"; ie your vote or contribution is just vapour and decisions will be made against your interest or choice.

Am I to understand then that you think all public service positions should be put to the people?

PokeHerKing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370892#Comment_121370892

No just government positions.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370927#Comment_121370927

So if "government position", does that mean each cabinet position should be elected too? Following a general-election, we then have a follow-up election to elect a cabinet?

PokeHerKing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370948#Comment_121370948

No. But you should be an elected member of the party. Holding a seat etc. ya know, democracy.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370992#Comment_121370992

Which in 99% of cases, is the case and how democracy functions; by consent of the people to govern in its stead - so how is that illusory if it's already established that 'dems the rules, and we understand the ceiling of popular intervention? And why are cabinets exempt while "government positions" are not and should be decided by vote? Just don't understand where the line is being drawn here.

You did say "democracy is an illusion" as an absolute concept - not just this case with Cameron - which by definition implies chicanery or deception, we're being fooled by a patina of democracy. So not understanding at what point this happens if you yourself admit cabinets are themselves unelected.

PokeHerKing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121371049#Comment_121371049

Governments are elected, cabinets are not. Not sure why this is causing you such confusion.

Cameron scenario, to me(not you) is an example of the illusion of democracy. Elected officials creating rules within the fabric of "democracy" that circumvent the very fundamental/foundational concept of said democracy.

yagan

Can we draw a line under democracy is an illusion.

In Ireland we have three times as many elected reps as the UK, candidates have a much harder contest than the many safe seats in the UK where often candidates are parachuted in.

The Tories don't canvas in Liverpool because no one will vote for them, labour don't canvas there either because they don't have to.

Our elected reps are a truer reflection of society, whereas around 70% of UK MPs went to the same Oxbridge college colleagues that less than 2% of the population have attended.

The expansion of the democratic franchise in Britain was always carefully managed.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121371072#Comment_121371072

Your entire premise of democracy as "illusion" is what confuses and bothers me, but @yagan is also right and worth moving on from this glib reduction as well.

rock22

Strictly speaking the whole concept of handing control to an elected Parliament , even for a fixed term, is not democratic. The word implies rule by the demos i.e. all the people.

Perhaps what we need is a Platonic Republic.

serfboard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121370992#Comment_121370992

I wouldn't disagree with you on that one, that Cabinet Ministers, i.e. those who direct the policy, should be elected. And mostly they are. The James Dooge example, is, AFAIK, the only time it was tried in recent-ish Irish history and it caused such ructions in Fine Gael that it was never tried by them, or anyone else, again.

Pete_Cavan

Give the number of members of the Seanad which are allowed to be ministers is limited to two, I assume there was some rationale behind the provision. Maybe something as unlikely a nuclear war or that, it wouldn't be the first time I was surprised by how many bases were covered when our system of governance was devised.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121372756#Comment_121372756

It's not really to do with nuclear war or similar emergencies; it's more basic than that.

Go back for a moment to PokeHerKing's suggestion that in a democracy government officials must be elected. Obviously this isn't true in a presidential republic, where the chief executive (President, Governor) is elected (sometimes indirectly elected, as in the US) but most or all other government officials are appointed. (Presumably PHK doesn't consider the US and other presidential republics to be democracies.)

In a parliamentary democracy, senior government officials are (usually) drawn from elected members of parliament, but note that this doesn't mean they are elected as government officials; they are not. They are elected as legislators, and subsequently appointed as government officials, often over the heads of colleagues who got more votes than they did. But, because they are members of the legislature, they are accountable to the legislature in a way that government officials in presidential republics are usually not.

That's good, but it does mean that the pool of potential senior government officials is very small. Dáil Éireann has 160 members. The government side of this will have slightly more than half of these — say, typically, about 90. Out of that 90 we have to find a Taoiseach, a Tánaiste, 13 other government ministers, perhaps 15 junior ministers, perhaps 15 chairpersons of Oireachtas committees, a Ceann Comhairle - say 45 people. Plus, you want more members of the governing party who have the talent and ability to fill these posts and are ambitious to do so, to keep current occupants on their toes and to be able to fill vacancies as they arise.

That's a lot of talent needed from a very small pool, when you consider that the skills and aptitudes required to be elected to Dáil Éireann are completely different from the skills and aptitudes required to provide leadership and direction to a large and complex organisation like a Government department. One consequence of this, in parliamentary democracies, is that unelected (but very experienced) officials have a large degree of influence in government. But they can't be in cabinet, so that doesn't get around the problem of finding high-quality ministers.

Allowing ministers to be appointed from the upper house of the legislature is a common way to try to reduce (but not eliminate) this problem. Parliamentary democracies have a wide variety of ways of selecting members of the upper house but appointment and indirect election are both common. The whole point of having an upper house, in theory, is to secure the services of people who might not be successful in a popular election but who nevertheless have skills, aptitudes, experience which can add value to the legislative process. And by allowing some members of the government to be appointed from the upper house, you also widen the available talent pool for government.

You then have ministers who are not members of the elected house of the legislature. But in terms of democratic accountability, PHK's views notwithstanding, the important thing is not that a minister should be elected to that house; it's that he should be accountable to that house. The house should have the same right to question him, to supervise him, to investigate him, to vote no confidence in him, as they would if he were a member of the house. And that's perfectly doable — in fact, that's pretty much the way it is.

yagan

Well the attempt to appoint zappone clearly shows there's no support for appointing the unexpected, even if they previously won.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121373912#Comment_121373912

Nuclear war was just an exaggerated example, there are countless other more mundane situations where this could be useful. There are unlikely (and also unforeseeable) circumstances where this provision could be vital, its usage for a less vital reason, as is the case with Hackett, doesn't undermine that.

The point we are both making is that the ability to appoint members of the Seanad to Cabinet is an inbuilt flexibility in the system. Having that flexibility could be very important some day and it certainly doesn't diminish democracy. I presume the hard limit was set to avoid abuse of the provision.

Quin_Dub

##Mod Note##

Let's park the conversation about the validity or otherwise of appointing people to Government roles from outside the Dail/Parliament.

It's not pertinent to the topic.

Feel free to open another thread to discuss it further if you wish.

Seth Brundle

Cornwall Council have confirmed that the funding it receives from central government to replace what it used to receive in EU funding is about to run out.

They were promised about £100m per annum until 2025 (with no guarrantees for after then) but appear to have only revceived about £43m per year. This means that there'll be about £230m shortfall in funds for local projects

https://www.radioexe.co.uk/news-and-features/local-politics/cornwalls-brexit-replacement-cash-runs-out/

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121381390#Comment_121381390

They should spend what's left and put it on the side of a bus.

I have limited sympathy for the likes of Cornwall who forever vote blue and who's fishermen are bigger moaners that the coal miners.

Maybe the fishermen should get a big bus and apologize that their tiny little industry fuked over the much bigger hospitality industry that they ironically rely on.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121381428#Comment_121381428

I've none whatsoever. A friend of mine is from North Cornwall and says that people constantly moan about young people leaving in droves but will fight nothing harder than attempts to increase the local housing stock.

They voted for this. Let them eat sovereignty.

Pete_Cavan

"Let them eat sovereignty", now there's a Brexit slogan I can get behind!

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121381468#Comment_121381468

I read somewhere that Cornwall is full of English OAPs, not local Cornish people (many of whom have moved out) - hence the love affair with the Tory Party, Brexit, the Daily Mail etc.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121382602#Comment_121382602

Pretty much. Same goes for most parts of Devon. My abiding memories are pubs full of men with bulldog tattoos instead of hair.

Cornwall was one of the few counties not to have a university until Falmouth finally got university status under the ironically half EU funded Combined University of Cornwall project.