Author Topic: The Electoral Reform Commission  (Read 64928 times)

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743
Re: The Electoral Reform Commission
« Reply #330 on: January 31, 2017, 08:40:31 AM »
Powergate was quoted on the front of last night's JEP threatening us with a Royal Commission if his fellow sophists don't agree to abolish parish Deputies and Island Senators in Wednesday's vote:

http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2017/01/30/deputy-last-chance-to-reform-states-ourselves/

That is just laughably absurd. We're not in the 19th century any more (although his haircut still seems to be) and the UK Government (regrettably) has no desire any more to interfere in the shabby little ways we choose to govern ourselves. Neither side would want to pay for it either. Jersey definitely wouldn't want the UK getting involved because that might reopen the question of the Constables remaining in the States all over again, just as they've successfully managed to kill off any remaining dissent locally, with even the turncoat Mezec now playing the role of a wide-eyed Constables' fanboy.

The extra St Helier seats will just end up going to wealthy country-residing government power seekers anyway so there will be no extra voice for the urban poor in the new Assembly if this road crash of a proposition somehow sneaks through with a tiny majority.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 08:44:18 AM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743
Re: The Electoral Reform Commission
« Reply #331 on: February 01, 2017, 08:39:55 AM »
Some frankly bizarre claims about the supposed benefits of option B were made by 'Powergate' Lewis during an unchallenged interview on BBC Channel Islands News last night. Unfortunately I did not have time to write down his exact quotes and can only quote from memory but I recall him reeling off these two classics (in blue font):

* No more uncontested elections!

Er, what? ??? Presumably he means without taking into consideration the 12 Constables' seats. Perhaps he thinks that he doesn't have to bother mentioning them at all because, technically, the way they are being elected isn't actually changing and therefore those 12 seats are not officially part of his 'reforms'. ::) Either that or he just thinks that because Donald J. Trump is blatantly getting away with telling 'alternative facts' (i.e. lies) then he should be able to get away with doing the same thing too.

Even disregarding the Constables' seats, he still should not be allowed to get away with making such a bold statement on camera that there will be no uncontested elections (in the super constituencies) as if that was an inevitable consequence of his reforms. First of all, hotly contested elections are already the norm in all of Jersey's most urbanised areas apart from St Saviour so nothing much is likely to change in those areas if his reforms are passed. Contested elections are more likely but mainly due to two unfortunate consequences of Option B:

1) The abolition of the remaining Senators' seats will force government ministers to stand against more locally-orientated, parish candidates, so we will see ballot papers in areas of St Helier with perhaps 20 or more names on them, making it harder for voters to devote sufficient time to properly researching each and every candidate. This in turn will favour existing States Members and wealthier candidates because voters are either likely to know what they stand for already or (in the case of the wealthier ones) they will soon become well acquainted with them through expensive mailshots and huge banners everywhere.

2) The cut in the total number of Assembly seats up for grabs will presumably also help to add length to ballot papers as some incumbent States Members whose old seats have been abolished compete with other States Members for fewer seats.

Neither the abolition of the islandwide mandate nor the cut in the number of seats in the legislature is a positive change from the perspective of political accountability and the side effect of having possibly unwieldy numbers of candidates in some of the urban super constituencies does not really cancel these bad things out.

* There'll be more "Deputies" to assist with the Constables!

That's more or less what I heard Powergate say on BBC TV but I don't have a recording to go back and check again. I have been struggling ever since to understand what the hell he meant by this. I still can't figure it out but if I had to guess, I would say he might have meant that those States Members who lose their jobs as a result of the reduction in the number of Assembly seats will then offer their services for free to their local Constables. Suddenly the parishes will have loads more staff as redundant ex-States Members volunteer their services purely for the benefit of their communities rather than for their own financial gain. They could be employed (without pay) to do menial tasks such as picking up dog turds and litter in the rain, disposing of fly-tipped asbestos, or maybe just following the Constable around and constantly applauding him, like he's the dictator of North Korea or something.

OK, I really can't come up with any better explanation of what bullsh*t he was trying to get away with when he said that. Whatever it was, I simply don't swallow it. I wasn't born yesterday.

And what a totally unbalanced report by the BBC TV 'journalist', if you can call her that. No interviews with any States Members opposing option B and even the 3 cheap voxpop street quotes were all in favour of the Lewis-Mezec reforms in one form or another. It's what we've come to expect from BBC Jersey so no surprise.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 08:47:07 AM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743
Re: Andrew Lewis deforms the facts to his advantage (again!)
« Reply #332 on: February 02, 2017, 05:50:14 AM »
Another totally misleading 'fact' was cited by Deputy Andrew 'Powergate Lewis during an interview on ITV News Channel TV (6pm edition) today. Once again I could not get an exact quote of his words and when I tuned in to the late edition of ITV News at 10.30pm to view it again for certainty, the report was shown again but with Lewis' interview comments completely removed - did they belatedly realise that his statement was too misleading to broadcast again? The report doesn't seem to be on the ITV News website either - strange.  ::)

What I heard him say (from memory so I might be wrong) was that 6 Deputies on the Council Of Ministers got 400 votes between them. Quite patently that is not the case on the plain and obvious meaning of the way he said it, because that would imply that between those 6 Deputies, they polled a total of 400 votes, so some of them must have been elected to the States with presumably less than 100 votes each! :o.

Therefore for clarity and fact-checking purposes, I have just checked the States Assembly website and browsed through the various Government Departments and listed the names of all the Deputies holding either the position of Minister or Assistant Minister, together with the number of votes they polled in the 2014 elections.

I have highlighted in red the 5 lowest number of votes cast for certain Deputies, which range from 476 for Scott Wickenden to 685 for Rod Bryans. Any Deputy who polled higher than that got more than 1,000 votes. There are 2 Deputies holding the position of Minister who were elected unopposed in 2014 but I presume Lewis did not intend to include them in his statistics because that would have opened up the obvious question of why some Constables are also holding ministerial positions despite being elected unopposed - and Lewis' proposition wouldn't stop Constables continuing to be returned unopposed in the future, so he doesn't want to highlight any members of the executive who didn't have contested elections. I have only included Anne Pryke once even though she holds an astonishing 4 separate Ministerial positions. I didn't even know that was allowed.

1) Chief Minister

Assistant Minister:

Deputy Scott Wickenden (polled 476 votes - St Helier No. 1)

2) Education

Minister:

Deputy Rod Bryans (polled 685 votes - St Helier No. 2)

Assistant Minister:

Deputy Anne Pryke (polled 624 votes - Trinity)

3) Health and Social Services

Assistant Minister:

Deputy Peter McLinton (polled 656 votes - St Saviour No.1)


4) Housing

Minister:

Deputy Anne Pryke (polled 624 votes - Trinity)


5) Social Security

Minister:

Deputy Susie Pinel (polled 1,541 votes - St Clement)

Assistant Minister:

Deputy Graham Truscott (polled 1,073 votes - St Brelade No. 2)


6) Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture

Assistant Minister:

Deputy Murray Norton (polled 545 votes - St Brelade No. 1)

7) Home Affairs

Minister:

Deputy Kristina Moore (polled 1,335 votes - St Peter)


8] Environment

Minister:

Deputy Stephen Luce (re-elected unopposed - St Martin)

Assistant Minister:

Deputy Anne Pryke (polled 624 votes - Trinity)

9) Infrastructure

Minister:

Deputy Eddie Noel (re-elected unopposed - St Lawrence)

Assistant Minister:

Deputy Anne Pryke (polled 624 votes - Trinity)

Looking at these figures, I reckon he is actually referring to the fact that 6 Deputies (my research says only 5 - Wickenden, Norton, Pryke, McLinton and Bryans) individually gained total votes in their respective constituencies that happened to be within 400 votes of each other. However, that is a totally meaningless argument. For example, I could equally point out, using the same misleading Lewis rhetoric, that in those same 2014 elections, 4 candidates for Senator (Ferguson - 9,800 votes, Ozouf - 10,062 votes, Farnham - 10,409 votes, Cameron - 10,412 votes) got just 612 votes between them. That is just as misleading - and just as meaningless too.

« Last Edit: February 02, 2017, 05:53:58 AM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743
Re: States adopts Farnham wrecking amendment
« Reply #333 on: February 02, 2017, 09:39:43 PM »
News Update at 3.40pm:

The States Assembly has adopted the self-serving wrecking amendment of Lyndon Farnham, which, in itself, is a terrible compromise that would still see the introduction of super constituencies and a reduction in the number of Deputies, but with 8 Senators (and 12 Constables of course).

Powergate then announced, with the full support of Sam Mezec, that he wished to withdraw his proposition. Some supporters of the Farnham wrecking amendment then criticised Powergate for wanting to withdraw it, Farnham being paramount amongst them as he wants to take the credit for being the man who finally persuaded the States to introduce 'reform' (albeit terrible back of a fag packet compromise reform).

The States are now debating whether to withdraw the Powergate proposition, amidst much confusion as to whether a proposer has the right to withdraw his own proposition or whether the Assembly must decide that for him...  ???



« Last Edit: February 02, 2017, 09:42:24 PM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
Re: The Electoral Reform Commission
« Reply #334 on: February 02, 2017, 11:02:54 PM »

The shambles that are the states of Jersey ( small s )

Again one highly relevant point which I am afraid I do not have time at the momemnt to look up Hansard as a confirmation but when asked by a Deputy in a debate a couple of weeks ago Gorst answered where does this leave the Troy rule he basically answered that the Troy rule would be scrapped and superseded.

For those not familier with the Troy rule it is incredibly important and was installed many years ago by the States, after being proposed by Deputy Troy.

My rough interpretation is that the total number of backbenchers must always outnumber the executive ie the Ministers.

If this were not the case under collective responsibility and  the fact that the Chief MInister can now sack someone that disagrees with him what you basically have is a dictatorship.

So what do we have now ?

BB

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: The Electoral Reform Commission
« Reply #335 on: February 03, 2017, 04:22:35 AM »
gorst did not sack bailhache when he voted again him.
I am glad we still have the island wide vote for Senators. it makes it harder for the likes of ozouf and co getting back in. They stand a better chance within one of the 6 districts. I take it you must live in the district.

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743
Re: The Electoral Reform Commission
« Reply #336 on: February 03, 2017, 06:54:36 AM »
Having missed the end of the debate, I was stunned to get home and learn from the BBC TV News at 6.30pm that the States had actually adopted P.133 as amended by Farnham, because it seemed that they were going to defer the whole thing until the next States sitting when I switched off after 4pm.

My own understanding is that P.133 became law only because Lewis, having initially declared that he was withdrawing his proposition, then sensationally changed his mind after several of the most senior Ministers got up and made speeches urging him not to withdraw. Farnham, seeing his one great chance to take all the credit about to slip away, also ripped into Lewis.

Lewis then flip-flopped and changed his mind. This then led to a legal conundrum because Farnham had also proposed (stupidly) holding a referendum on his own changes before next year's election. The twit hadn't taken into account how long this process would take and it became apparent that the referendum would have to be done and dusted within the next 3 months otherwise it would be too late to enact the legislation for the 2018 elections. Yet when I heard Farnham being interviewed on the 10.30pm edition of ITV News, he said that he hopes his plans will be put to a referendum in the "third or fourth quarter" of this year and if approved, be introduced in time for next year's elections! So it would appear that the States are going to rush this through in record time!

It's all a terrible mess which only got adopted because enough States Members convinced themselves that they had to agree to some type of reform today come what may. Better bad reform than no reform was their motto. As a result, more than a century and a half of Deputies representing their parishes is going to be destroyed. Instead, Deputies will represent their own parish and some neighbouring parishes too, while the Constables continue to get elected unopposed as they always have and the wealthiest Ministers who can afford to spend £9k on their election campaigns continue to get back in as Senators...  >:(

Worst of all was watching the despicable Mr Lewis being interviewed on BBC TV at 6.30pm and claiming that he was "pleased" with the result, when we all know that little more than 3 hours earlier he had stated the exact opposite to the House. Well that's yet another lie to add to the others he's already got away with this week!
   

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: The Electoral Reform Commission
« Reply #337 on: February 04, 2017, 04:25:16 PM »
May be the island wide senator vote should only be for people who want to be ministers. That way the people wopuld have voted for the government they wanted. The then ministers would pick their assit ministers and voted in by the states members.
With the island wide vote people like ozouf i think will not get in next time. If it had just been districts then he would have had a chance of getting in.
I cannot see the island voting for him but he might just stand as a deputy which would show you how power crazy he is and keeping the back handers they get from their friends and business. 

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
Re: The Electoral Reform Commission
« Reply #338 on: February 04, 2017, 07:00:55 PM »
How about the 8 senators who get elected become the ministers. In that way the people would be voting for their government. Only people who would want to be a minster can stand.
Afterward they can pick their assit  minsters after they have been voted in by the states assembly.
Now if they govern like this lot have then we should be able to make them resign from any minster position.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 06:06:33 PM by Chevalier Blanc »

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743
Re: The Electoral Reform Commission
« Reply #339 on: March 28, 2017, 08:32:39 AM »
The States will today rubber stamp another future car crash of a law - the Draft Referendum (Jersey) Law 201- (P.4/2017) - link below:

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2017/P.4-2017.pdf


This pandora's box of a law will cause us all no end of anguish in years to come because it creates the ideal environment that will encourage even more public referenda to be held in future than have ever been held in the past. As if the great Jersey sham referendum of 2013 and the disaster that was the UK's Brexit referendum last year hadn't already taught us of the huge dangers of trusting white van man to sort out complicated and far-reaching constitutional questions - now they want him to sort out loads more controversial issues in the future!  ::)

Mark my words- we will see at least one referendum - possibly several - happening every year or so once it becomes law, because they are creating - yes, wait for it - another Commission (with 5 suitably suited and booted members who will obviously be the best pals of States Members, Julian Rogers where are you?) to oversee the holding of future referenda. Obviously if you are going to go to the lengths of creating a fully-fledged Commission for this purpose then the natural result is that you will end up holding regular referenda in order to justify the expense of creating and running the Commission - in other words it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Commission will operate as all other States-appointed Commissions operate - designed to give the external appearance of being independent and impartial while really being just an obedient political organ of the politicians who created it. The Commission will then have the power to designate a "lead campaign group" to fight the arguments on behalf of each side in a referendum. My first thought, given that Commission members will just be enforcing the will of existing States Members, is what types of people will be fronting these campaign groups that the Commission will end up giving approval to? Without doubt, it will mostly be States Members and their supporters, just as it always has been in the past. What we will end up with is the public having to go to the polls regularly to sort out arguments between different factions of States Members who can't sort out the issues amongst themselves in the States Chamber. Every time a States Member realises that he hasn't got enough support within the House to get his proposition adopted, he/she will try to get it put to the electors in a referendum. This could have harmful consequences.

For example, I can foresee someone like Deputy Jacqueline Hilton trying to put 'populist' issues to a referendum which are just too extreme to gain majority support in the House but might possibly get over the line in a public referendum where many voters are not sophisticated enough to weigh up the pros and cons and don't realise when supposed facts are actually lies. Take the issue of alcoholics on income support; she has repeatedly made clear her views about this to successive Social Security Ministers - that is the type of emotive subject that would struggle to get majority support in the Chamber but might possibly win a typically one-sided, unbalanced referendum where there is no effective or credible opposing voices.

We could end up with all types of dangerously xenophobic and divisive minority issues being put directly to the voters that at the very least will help to marginalise certain groups and create added tension within the community. I truly fear for where this Referendum law might lead us. We have already seen how the Brexit referendum resulted in a spike in all sorts of racist incidents as well as the murder of a serving MP. Just by raising the issues associated with Brexit, some people felt they were finally free to say things in the street that they wouldn't have said before Brexit. If we get a similar situation occurring here, the atmosphere could be even more toxic given how many different ethnic groups have to share a very congested little island. The last thing we need is a sh*t-stirrer sticking her oar in.

I notice that the proposition says nothing about whether referenda held under the new law will continue to be merely advisory, which I presume they will be. If so, that would mean that we could still end up with the same situation of the Assembly refusing to enact the result of a referendum, as (thankfully) happened after the great sham referendum. If it was not advisory, I would argue that this would create a constitutional dilemma which would threaten the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. That is why I presume they intend to keep future referenda as merely advisory rather than binding ... but do they? 

There is also not a word about any minimum voter turnout below which the result of the referendum would automatically be void. So we would still have the ridiculous possibility of States Members trying to enact into law the result of a referendum which had an unacceptably low turnout, as was the case with the great sham referendum of 2013 (turnout = 26%).

Finally, I also notice that the draft law prevents States Members and persons holding "any paid office or employment in the service of the States or of any administration of the States" (or a Parish) from being Commissioners. However, that would still appear to allow employees/ Directors of any outsourced States entitities (such as Andium, the JDC, etc.) to take up Commission posts as second jobs while still continuing with their main Quango jobs. That is no surprise to me as many of the biggest government cronies are sitting on these Quango boards and States Members will want to see the same individuals sitting on the future Referendum Commission as well.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 08:42:38 AM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743
Re: The Electoral Reform Commission
« Reply #340 on: March 29, 2017, 10:02:48 AM »
Well I did say it would be a rubber stamp job and I was right - the Referendum proposition was so uncontroversial it went through on a standing vote only. Members will now be scrambling to get their best pals on the Commission. The overwhelming favourite is obviously Julian Rogers if he wants it. Andium brown-noser Colin Russell is also a short price.

There is obviously going to be a dogfight amongst members to get their respective referendum questions accepted as soon as the law is in force and the Commission members approved. I am wondering how the Commission will manage multiple referendum requests. Could we possibly end up with several different referenda all taking place on the same day with the electors being given multiple referendum ballot papers when they turn up to cast a vote? I can see them doing that to try to save money.

The whole thing is a recipe for disaster and I give it 3 years max before I am back on this same thread quoting these comments and saying I told you so. 

Good that almost 60 people have read this page in the last 24 hours though.

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743
Re: No joking - Powergate reforms to be debated YET AGAIN
« Reply #341 on: April 19, 2017, 07:41:12 PM »
This is quite simply beyond parody: Deputy Andrew 'Powergate' Lewis has today lodged two amendments to a proposition of the Privileges and Procedures Committee which would seem to have the effect of requiring the States Assembly to consider afresh his electoral reform plans, only 3 months after the States decided to amend his proposition.  :o  >:(  :-[  ???

The Committee had lodged P.18/2017 on 14th March in order to implement the decision of the States on 2nd February to approve the Farnham-amended version of the Powergate proposition.

This latest attempt by Lewis to impose his will on the electors of the island is set to be debated on 2nd May and one of his propositions clearly intends to remove the Senators from the House, which he tried and failed to achieve only 3 months ago. After that debate on 2nd February, he went outside and told BBC Channel Islands News on camera that he was "pleased" with the amended Farnham version of his proposition. Now it seems that he wasn't actually pleased at all and wants his own Farnham-free proposition debated all over again.

He is also trying to overturn Farnham's amended super constituency borders which the States agreed, to get his own borders reinstated. This would have profound effects for some parishes. For example, the Farnham plan would see St Clement and Grouville form one constituency, whereas the Powergate plan (rejected in February) would see St Clement, Grouville and St Martin form one more rural-dominated constituency. In the west, the Farnham plan would see St Brelade, St Ouen and St Peter form one constituency, whereas the rejected Powergate plan would see just St Brelade and St Peter form one constituency. There are other differences which I shall not repeat now.

The media doesn't seem to have picked up on the story yet and I haven't had time to properly study the two propositions he has lodged today, which can be viewed below:

Powergate 1st amendment:

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2017/P.18-2017Amd.pdf


Powergate 2nd amendment:

http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2017/P.18-2017Amd(2).pdf


There have been no changes to the membership of the States in the 3 months since his plans were last substantially amended. Is this man so stubborn (or just thick?) that he thinks the same group of Members who rejected his ideas then will now suddenly be swayed to adopt them? This is the ultimate abuse of the legislative process and if rules aren't in place to stop him getting away with this then the rules urgently need to be reviewed.

Offline voiceforchildren

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
  • Gender: Male
    • voiceforchildren
Re: The Electoral Reform Commission
« Reply #342 on: April 19, 2017, 10:11:16 PM »
Andrew POWERGATE Lewis being "pleased" with the media and "not so pleased" in the States. https://youtu.be/PHOxVqONz2U
An alternative to Jersey's State Media

Offline Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 743
Re: The Electoral Reform Commission
« Reply #343 on: April 20, 2017, 05:46:26 AM »
Andrew POWERGATE Lewis being "pleased" with the media and "not so pleased" in the States. https://youtu.be/PHOxVqONz2U

Oh- a devastating bit of editing there. Well done!

On a lighter note, I thought Susie Pinel and Mrs Ozouf were snogging each other in the top right hand corner starting at 0.55 on the tape, but after upgrading the picture quality it seems that they were just whispering something. I can't help wondering what they were saying though. Probably nothing complimentary if Deputy Lewis was the subject of the conversation.

How long before States Members start covering their mouths with their hands like Jose Mourinho when chatting to other Ministers in the Chamber? There is bound to be a lip reader out there somewhere who will eventually catch one of them saying something really embarrassing.

One thought: if the States do decide to change their mind and back the Lewis reforms in a fortnight's time, what should be the response of the PPC who brought the original proposition in order to implement the will of the house as decided in February? Withdraw the proposition, as Deputy Lewis intended to do himself before changing his mind? And if the PPC proposition was then withdrawn, would that mean no change at all in electoral districts next year unless another proposition was very quickly lodged and then adopted? What a total mess.

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
Re: The Electoral Reform Commission
« Reply #344 on: April 24, 2017, 04:22:47 PM »
What has France in common with Jersey ? A comment on the French election where obviously the elite mainstream politicians are so clever they all got kicked out ! In the article below it struck me that Jersey politicians living in their ivory tower, leaving to go on tax funded jollys or to get instruction from expensive spin doctors, are similar in many ways to the French politico.

Mainstream politicians are so out of touch with the electorate it is painful.

Christine Constable 24 Apr 2017 8:43AM

It is a sad day for France, this new upstart has no political base it is a bit like Farage becoming PM without any supporting MPs - what can he do to make the really massive changes France requires - nothing.  It will be a figleaf of a protest by the French who will still be fighting like cats in a bag between the failed Trotsky model of a heavily socialist France and the external forces of globalisation - the problem is France cannot deal with it huge structural problems without the same kind of economic blood letting the UK went through during the Thatcher era - France has managed to stave off this suffering  through support from the CAP - support which will no longer be forthcoming when the UK finally extricates itself from the bloc - it will be the leaving of the UK cash which will precipitate a massive economic crash for France, which is why the French are so bitter about the UK and are among the front runners that want to "punish the British"!

France has been living in cloud cuckoo land for a long time now, a failing agriculture sector, protectionist tendencies, ridiculously high taxation, anti business rules and aggressive employment policies compounded by  poor general government.

The French want to live in their one cow six chickens nirvana, but do not have the cash to do it, meanwhile the country has been filling up with antagonistic, often unemployed and welfare draining migrants   further eroding their parlous state.

One man elected as President who knows what difficult things need to be done, will be unable to do anything without a political base to support him, it will be just like Obama in a Republican held Senate and HofR.

The French are afraid of taking the big decisions and hope a vote for a token politician will deliver them from servitude to Germany and financial reality - history shows us that it won't and France's problems could grow and become more intractable.

Ironically the French who are so antagonistic to the EU are in their charmed position (spending more than they earn for decades) because of the largesse of the EU made possible by the UK's contribution - this situation for the British is intolerable that we should be forced to subsidise a lazy ideologically flawed and politically spiteful partner who, now realising they are going to have to pick up the tab for their own failures rather than expecting everyone else to pay for them wants to create an unpleasant backlash to Britain, a country that has enabled it to stay in its torpor of failure for quite a few decades.

France should wake up and smell the coffee and recognise that Britain is doing it a favour - change only comes about through necessity and Brexit means that France must now do the tough things to get itself back into a functioning economy without the need for subsidies.

The EU should be nervous indeed - no change on the EU front or "more Europe" followed by a French President that is paralysed to do anything could create a very dangerous situation in France - just a handful more of terrorist outrages could tip the country into a very volatile situation and I would not be surprised if France ends up with another election in a few months time.

The EU elites have monumentally failed Europe, their one size fits all, over ambition, politically driven agenda, and spectacular failures with the Euro and economic growth, let alone mass unwanted migration will continue to sow the seeds of its eventual collapse.

Sadly the EU never had the intellectual capacity to do the obvious thing and consult with the people subjected to Europe about what  THEY wanted, the elites presumed to themselves that THEY knew what the people wanted  and that their very specific vision was a shared vision - which it wasn't.  We now have a huge number of subsidy junkies in Europe - one of the biggest being France itself and without massive structural change the expensive subsidy driven model that runs the EU will crash into reality.

It is a political embarrassment for mainstream politicians in France that none of them made the Presidential run off.....in the same way the UK had to use Farage as a bulwark against which to demand a referendum on membership of the EU - mainstream politicians are so out of touch with the electorate it is painful.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/04/23/eu-breathes-easy-now-politics-usual-no-longer-option-france/

Comments section.

bb
« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 04:30:54 PM by boatyboy »