• May: No Brexit more likely than No Deal
    38 replies, posted
'Well I didn't get to vote for them so that's undemocratic!' -Actual comment I overheard about the EU being 'unelected'. You can try and explain this to people as much as you can but the idea that they do not get a say in who represents other states is alien to them.
No one voted for Theresa May to be leader.
I saw Labour MP's want to rebel and back May's deal however, so if they do support her proposal we may not have a no deal but we won't be officially in the EU either, which is probably just as bad in this situation i.e - if you hope no deal being reached meaning we cancel brexit.
No, you misunderstood my point. Every state leader collectively decides within the European Council the policy direction to take. That means that someone like the PM of my country that I did not vote for is pushing an agenda for my country. Yes, this is a domestic issue, but it's an issue for other states too because a leader that was not elected by the British people is representing Britain within the EU as well as having sway over policy affecting other EU citizens. Other unelected members of the European Concil include the President of the European Concil (they are elected by the council and thus democracy is filtered and less representative of the people's views. A simple solution would be to have the president either elected by MEPs or better yet the people of the European states themselves so that they could be driving a more representative policy programme.
She was voted for by her constituency to be their representative in parliament, and she was voted for by her party (of democratically elected representatives) to be leader of the party. By virtue of winning enough votes, and therefore enough seats, she was able to form a government (with the support of another party that secured a lot of votes) and thus making her Prime Minister. Phew, that's a lot of voting going on.
She didn't. We're in a state of confidence and supply. She has no legitimate mandate to rule. The only reason she's in power is because the British political system is based so heavily in tradition and uncodified constitutional piecemealing that we have no better alternative than taking the party with plurality rule. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/112976/5217e7dc-1949-4706-bf6e-f885984464fa/Screenshot_7.png
seems like its the old farts sitting in front of their TVs are the problem. Youths showed up at record numbers to vote against brexit.
If she had no mandate to lead then she wouldn't still be prime minister. Her ability to govern might have been weak since the last election, but so far she has only faced one vote of no confidence, which she won relatively comfortably. It's only been very recently in the face of Brexit (who'd have thunk it?) that she has been at serious risk of losing control. I quite agree. But like I said in the previous paragraph, up until recently she hasn't faced a huge amount of opposition from her own party. In fact, given how many of her own MPs are rebelling, she'd likely still be in trouble over Brexit even with a simply majority. So while you may disagree with how this government is formed, ultimately no one has yet to make it illegitimate. What other solution is there? There's no point in having a leader of the house who isn't a part of the ruling party because nothing will get done. A new executive branch of the government with an elected president would require fundamental changes to the political system of this country, and given how badly Brexit has gone I struggle to see that being popular.
Whilst that might be technically true, are you suggesting that when people cast their vote at the last general election, they were unaware that May would become Prime Minister if the Conservatives won? Using that as the marker for claiming that the EU is an undemocratic unelected body is frankly ridiculous.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.