|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
@Kwark
i understood your point but i see no difference between it and a spaghetti monster: no one has seen either but people have read about them ... in books.
now, if you want to argue that politeness, diplomacy and politics have value then that's a different argument(with which i will also disagree).
also, you fail to acknowledge what the sovereignty was about; people voted for it because they wanted it, for themselves. EU laws affected them and they voted for that to stop. i doubt there's even a 1% of people in UK who voted for sovereignty thinking of UK institutions, a.k.a the parliament.
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 08 2016 02:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:29 Uldridge wrote:
I think that's not what he's arguing, I think he's arguing that, even though they do have the power, they prefer not to invoke that power because they need to maintain their political/socio-economical relations with the EU and other nations.
They don't want to seem like massive assholes by flipping everyone off, or something? That is the whole point. The UK has the power to ignore EU set rules at any point if they want.
And always has had and always will have and can never, under any circumstances, no matter what they do, not have. That's what makes the sovereignty argument so silly.
It's like if a part of your brain started going "you don't have the power to hit yourself in the face, you don't really have any free will at all" and over time more and more of your brain started doing it and you eventually tap yourself in the face and it goes "no, like really hit yourself, you have to punch yourself in the face to prove free will" and eventually you break and give into the voices and smash yourself in the face and you're left there, bloody nosed and eyes watering crying out "ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?!?!" to which the voices in your head simply reply "fucking immigrants".
|
On July 08 2016 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 00:48 Gorsameth wrote:So he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself Good. Good, except now we're left with the worst two candidates. It looks like we're going to get Theresa 'Police State' May anyway.
Not sure if any worse than Andrea "no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights" Leadsom
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 08 2016 02:38 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark
i understood your point but i see no difference between it and a spaghetti monster: no one has seen either but people have read about them in ... books.
now, if you want to argue that politeness, diplomacy and politics have value then that's a different argument.
also, you fail to acknowledge what the sovereignty was about; people voted for it because they wanted it, for themselves. EU laws affected them and they voted for that to stop. i doubt there's even a 1% of people in UK who voted for sovereignty thinking of UK institutions, a.k.a the parliament.
EU laws affected them because they voted for parliamentary representatives who wanted EU laws to affect them. That's what you're missing. It was never about the EU, the EU has no power to do anything in the UK. The power of the EU exists in the UK only because the British Parliament chooses for it to exist. Parliament was the institution who was doing something they disagreed with, their issue is that they kept electing pro-EU MPs and then being surprised when those pro-EU MPs were pro-EU.
|
On July 08 2016 02:38 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark
i understood your point but i see no difference between it and a spaghetti monster: no one has seen either but people have read about them ... in books.
now, if you want to argue that politeness, diplomacy and politics have value then that's a different argument(with which i will also disagree).
also, you fail to acknowledge what the sovereignty was about; people voted for it because they wanted it, for themselves. EU laws affected them and they voted for that to stop. i doubt there's even a 1% of people in UK who voted for sovereignty thinking of UK institutions, a.k.a the parliament.
Except those laws will not stop applying for them if they want to remain in the EU single market. Especially the service market which is a requirement for the London financial district to exist.
(see Swiss and Norway EU trade model)
|
On July 08 2016 02:41 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 00:48 Gorsameth wrote:So he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself Good. Good, except now we're left with the worst two candidates. It looks like we're going to get Theresa 'Police State' May anyway. Not sure if any worse than Andrea "no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights" Leadsom
I agree. Gove may have been the best option, even though he was a scum in his own way. Maybe i'm a bit biased against May, I really, really hate her. Then again, maybe its not bias, maybe its all of the evidence that she wants a police state in the UK.
|
On July 08 2016 02:46 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:41 Dan HH wrote:On July 08 2016 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 00:48 Gorsameth wrote:So he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself Good. Good, except now we're left with the worst two candidates. It looks like we're going to get Theresa 'Police State' May anyway. Not sure if any worse than Andrea "no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights" Leadsom I agree. Gove may have been the best option, even though he was a scum in his own way. Maybe i'm a bit biased against May, I really, really hate her. Then again, maybe its not bias, maybe its all of the evidence that she wants a police state in the UK.
The UK is already a police state if you haven't realised this. There is CCTV everywhere. You laughed at Big Brother and communists, but some people are doing exactly that in the UK and US.
Edit: Surveillance is sometimes necessary, but I find it hypocritical in this case.
|
On July 08 2016 02:50 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 02:41 Dan HH wrote:On July 08 2016 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 00:48 Gorsameth wrote:So he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself Good. Good, except now we're left with the worst two candidates. It looks like we're going to get Theresa 'Police State' May anyway. Not sure if any worse than Andrea "no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights" Leadsom I agree. Gove may have been the best option, even though he was a scum in his own way. Maybe i'm a bit biased against May, I really, really hate her. Then again, maybe its not bias, maybe its all of the evidence that she wants a police state in the UK. The UK is already a police state if you haven't realised this. There is CCTV everywhere. You laughed at Big Brother and communists, but some people are doing exactly that in the UK and US.
You live in the UK, right? Its not a police state.
Sure there's alot of CCTV but it doesn't get used for evil state purposes.
Its not only the fact that UK police are themselves a joke, underfunded and weak. Its the fact that the law hasn't really caught up with technology.
Sure, when you get into the realms of terrorism and the intelligence services they have power to do stuff that they shouldn't, but you don't really hear stories of them actually doing it. The worst we get is over zealous council officials using laws inappropriately.
You need to see what laws May has planned, what her vision is for our country. Its the vision of a paranoid, delusional, terrorism obsessed insane person.
|
On July 08 2016 02:41 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 00:48 Gorsameth wrote:So he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself Good. Good, except now we're left with the worst two candidates. It looks like we're going to get Theresa 'Police State' May anyway. Not sure if any worse than Andrea "no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights" Leadsom
Actually it probably is, because there are probably enough Tories who would rebel against things like that than would rebel against police state shit. So her crazy shit is less likely to pass than May's.
|
On July 08 2016 02:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:38 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark
i understood your point but i see no difference between it and a spaghetti monster: no one has seen either but people have read about them in ... books.
now, if you want to argue that politeness, diplomacy and politics have value then that's a different argument.
also, you fail to acknowledge what the sovereignty was about; people voted for it because they wanted it, for themselves. EU laws affected them and they voted for that to stop. i doubt there's even a 1% of people in UK who voted for sovereignty thinking of UK institutions, a.k.a the parliament. EU laws affected them because they voted for parliamentary representatives who wanted EU laws to affect them. That's what you're missing. It was never about the EU, the EU has no power to do anything in the UK. The power of the EU exists in the UK only because the British Parliament chooses for it to exist. Parliament was the institution who was doing something they disagreed with, their issue is that they kept electing pro-EU MPs and then being surprised when those pro-EU MPs were pro-EU.
i get that too.
what you are missing thou is that you vote today for something that changes tomorrow or, you vote based on promises pending facts which is funny by itself but it gets even funnier when you realize you blame said voters for their poor foresight ...
|
On July 08 2016 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:50 Shield wrote:On July 08 2016 02:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 02:41 Dan HH wrote:On July 08 2016 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 00:48 Gorsameth wrote:So he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself Good. Good, except now we're left with the worst two candidates. It looks like we're going to get Theresa 'Police State' May anyway. Not sure if any worse than Andrea "no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights" Leadsom I agree. Gove may have been the best option, even though he was a scum in his own way. Maybe i'm a bit biased against May, I really, really hate her. Then again, maybe its not bias, maybe its all of the evidence that she wants a police state in the UK. The UK is already a police state if you haven't realised this. There is CCTV everywhere. You laughed at Big Brother and communists, but some people are doing exactly that in the UK and US. You live in the UK, right? Its not a police state. Sure there's alot of CCTV but it doesn't get used for evil state purposes. Its not only the fact that UK police are themselves a joke, underfunded and weak. Its the fact that the law hasn't really caught up with technology. Sure, when you get into the realms of terrorism and the intelligence services they have power to do stuff that they shouldn't, but you don't really hear stories of them actually doing it. The worst we get is over zealous council officials using laws inappropriately. You need to see what laws May has planned, what her vision is for our country. Its the vision of a paranoid, delusional, terrorism obsessed insane person.
Maybe, but I still stand by my point that the UK has too much CCTV. CCTV on bus, CCTV on streets, CCTV on train, etc. That's not freedom. It's fear.
|
On July 08 2016 03:00 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 02:50 Shield wrote:On July 08 2016 02:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 02:41 Dan HH wrote:On July 08 2016 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 00:48 Gorsameth wrote:So he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself Good. Good, except now we're left with the worst two candidates. It looks like we're going to get Theresa 'Police State' May anyway. Not sure if any worse than Andrea "no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights" Leadsom I agree. Gove may have been the best option, even though he was a scum in his own way. Maybe i'm a bit biased against May, I really, really hate her. Then again, maybe its not bias, maybe its all of the evidence that she wants a police state in the UK. The UK is already a police state if you haven't realised this. There is CCTV everywhere. You laughed at Big Brother and communists, but some people are doing exactly that in the UK and US. You live in the UK, right? Its not a police state. Sure there's alot of CCTV but it doesn't get used for evil state purposes. Its not only the fact that UK police are themselves a joke, underfunded and weak. Its the fact that the law hasn't really caught up with technology. Sure, when you get into the realms of terrorism and the intelligence services they have power to do stuff that they shouldn't, but you don't really hear stories of them actually doing it. The worst we get is over zealous council officials using laws inappropriately. You need to see what laws May has planned, what her vision is for our country. Its the vision of a paranoid, delusional, terrorism obsessed insane person. Maybe, but I still stand by my point that the UK has too much CCTV. CCTV on bus, CCTV on streets, CCTV on train, etc. That's not freedom. It's fear.
Oh I agree. I wouldn't use the words 'police state', but anonymity is impossible in the UK today.
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 08 2016 03:00 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 02:50 Shield wrote:On July 08 2016 02:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 02:41 Dan HH wrote:On July 08 2016 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 00:48 Gorsameth wrote:So he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself Good. Good, except now we're left with the worst two candidates. It looks like we're going to get Theresa 'Police State' May anyway. Not sure if any worse than Andrea "no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights" Leadsom I agree. Gove may have been the best option, even though he was a scum in his own way. Maybe i'm a bit biased against May, I really, really hate her. Then again, maybe its not bias, maybe its all of the evidence that she wants a police state in the UK. The UK is already a police state if you haven't realised this. There is CCTV everywhere. You laughed at Big Brother and communists, but some people are doing exactly that in the UK and US. You live in the UK, right? Its not a police state. Sure there's alot of CCTV but it doesn't get used for evil state purposes. Its not only the fact that UK police are themselves a joke, underfunded and weak. Its the fact that the law hasn't really caught up with technology. Sure, when you get into the realms of terrorism and the intelligence services they have power to do stuff that they shouldn't, but you don't really hear stories of them actually doing it. The worst we get is over zealous council officials using laws inappropriately. You need to see what laws May has planned, what her vision is for our country. Its the vision of a paranoid, delusional, terrorism obsessed insane person. Maybe, but I still stand by my point that the UK has too much CCTV. CCTV on bus, CCTV on streets, CCTV on train, etc. That's not freedom. It's fear.
You understand that those aren't state operated CCTV cameras, right? That those are not the state watching you but rather the people who own the trains or the buses or the stores trying to discourage you from stealing shit or attacking their staff. Because it feels a lot like you don't understand that, especially when you list things which are not owned by the state. The vast, vast majority of all CCTV is shit like petrol station cameras trying to discourage you from filling up and driving off, not Big Brother.
If you want to worry, worry about the monitoring of communications and the internet. That shit is scary. A CCTV camera on a train is not.
|
On July 08 2016 03:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 03:00 Shield wrote:On July 08 2016 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 02:50 Shield wrote:On July 08 2016 02:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 02:41 Dan HH wrote:On July 08 2016 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 00:48 Gorsameth wrote:So he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself Good. Good, except now we're left with the worst two candidates. It looks like we're going to get Theresa 'Police State' May anyway. Not sure if any worse than Andrea "no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights" Leadsom I agree. Gove may have been the best option, even though he was a scum in his own way. Maybe i'm a bit biased against May, I really, really hate her. Then again, maybe its not bias, maybe its all of the evidence that she wants a police state in the UK. The UK is already a police state if you haven't realised this. There is CCTV everywhere. You laughed at Big Brother and communists, but some people are doing exactly that in the UK and US. You live in the UK, right? Its not a police state. Sure there's alot of CCTV but it doesn't get used for evil state purposes. Its not only the fact that UK police are themselves a joke, underfunded and weak. Its the fact that the law hasn't really caught up with technology. Sure, when you get into the realms of terrorism and the intelligence services they have power to do stuff that they shouldn't, but you don't really hear stories of them actually doing it. The worst we get is over zealous council officials using laws inappropriately. You need to see what laws May has planned, what her vision is for our country. Its the vision of a paranoid, delusional, terrorism obsessed insane person. Maybe, but I still stand by my point that the UK has too much CCTV. CCTV on bus, CCTV on streets, CCTV on train, etc. That's not freedom. It's fear. Oh I agree. I wouldn't use the words 'police state', but anonymity is impossible in the UK today.
I think we can agree then.  Don't get me wrong, I still like the UK, but I'm not one of those with pink glasses. I can list quite a lot of problems with my own country (Bulgaria) as well.
On July 08 2016 03:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 03:00 Shield wrote:On July 08 2016 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 02:50 Shield wrote:On July 08 2016 02:46 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 02:41 Dan HH wrote:On July 08 2016 00:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 08 2016 00:48 Gorsameth wrote:So he backstabbed Johnson and got slapped himself Good. Good, except now we're left with the worst two candidates. It looks like we're going to get Theresa 'Police State' May anyway. Not sure if any worse than Andrea "no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights" Leadsom I agree. Gove may have been the best option, even though he was a scum in his own way. Maybe i'm a bit biased against May, I really, really hate her. Then again, maybe its not bias, maybe its all of the evidence that she wants a police state in the UK. The UK is already a police state if you haven't realised this. There is CCTV everywhere. You laughed at Big Brother and communists, but some people are doing exactly that in the UK and US. You live in the UK, right? Its not a police state. Sure there's alot of CCTV but it doesn't get used for evil state purposes. Its not only the fact that UK police are themselves a joke, underfunded and weak. Its the fact that the law hasn't really caught up with technology. Sure, when you get into the realms of terrorism and the intelligence services they have power to do stuff that they shouldn't, but you don't really hear stories of them actually doing it. The worst we get is over zealous council officials using laws inappropriately. You need to see what laws May has planned, what her vision is for our country. Its the vision of a paranoid, delusional, terrorism obsessed insane person. Maybe, but I still stand by my point that the UK has too much CCTV. CCTV on bus, CCTV on streets, CCTV on train, etc. That's not freedom. It's fear. You understand that those aren't state operated CCTV cameras, right? That those are not the state watching you but rather the people who own the trains or the buses or the stores trying to discourage you from stealing shit or attacking their staff. Because it feels a lot like you don't understand that, especially when you list things which are not owned by the state. The vast, vast majority of all CCTV is shit like petrol station cameras trying to discourage you from filling up and driving off, not Big Brother. If you want to worry, worry about the monitoring of communications and the internet. That shit is scary. A CCTV camera on a train is not.
Maybe it's a cultural thing. I don't see that much CCTV in Bulgaria. I don't know about other European countries.
Edit: For the record, I pay for all of my tickets and so on. I think some people have moral standards, thus CCTV or not, some people will still pay.
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 08 2016 02:59 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:42 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2016 02:38 xM(Z wrote:
@Kwark
i understood your point but i see no difference between it and a spaghetti monster: no one has seen either but people have read about them in ... books.
now, if you want to argue that politeness, diplomacy and politics have value then that's a different argument.
also, you fail to acknowledge what the sovereignty was about; people voted for it because they wanted it, for themselves. EU laws affected them and they voted for that to stop. i doubt there's even a 1% of people in UK who voted for sovereignty thinking of UK institutions, a.k.a the parliament. EU laws affected them because they voted for parliamentary representatives who wanted EU laws to affect them. That's what you're missing. It was never about the EU, the EU has no power to do anything in the UK. The power of the EU exists in the UK only because the British Parliament chooses for it to exist. Parliament was the institution who was doing something they disagreed with, their issue is that they kept electing pro-EU MPs and then being surprised when those pro-EU MPs were pro-EU. i get that too. what you are missing thou is that you vote today for something that changes tomorrow or, you vote based on promises pending facts which is funny by itself but it gets even funnier when you realize you blame said voters for their poor foresight ...
What you seemed not to understand is that there was no sovereignty issue with the EU because the sovereign people imposing the regulations they didn't like were their own parliament which, incidentally, will almost certainly keep imposing the regulations they don't like after we leave the EU in order to stay in the single market.
That's why the sovereignty issue is so silly. The EU never had any British sovereignty and never could have any British sovereignty, the British Parliament was the root of the "European" laws they disagreed with and will continue to be the problem long after we leave the EU. It's a colossal failure to understand how it works or what the problem actually was.
|
On July 08 2016 02:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:On July 08 2016 02:19 KwarK wrote:
Wait, how am I even still arguing this? Read the fucking quote about how parliamentary sovereignty works. It may not be the way things work in your nation but it's the way we do it in the UK. i'm arguing that it doesn't matter if a rule exists if no one follows it. you telling me that UK parliament invokes article 50 out of politeness makes me chuckle. International treaties exist by the virtue of both sides cooperating with it and the threat of action from one of the two if they stop. Since the EU is not going to invade the UK there is very little the EU can do to punish the UK if they simply quit tomorrow. So yes, following through with the official way to leave the EU compared to saying "tomorrow none of your rules apply anymore" is in a large part politeness.
Trade sanctions are a thing. If a country started ignoring treaties, they should consider a life without imports and exports, especially since other trade partners would avoid doing trade with them, too. The EU can't "force" a country to follow the treaties, but they can refuse to trade with such a country, which would be devastating for the economy of that country.
|
On July 08 2016 02:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 08 2016 02:29 Uldridge wrote:
I think that's not what he's arguing, I think he's arguing that, even though they do have the power, they prefer not to invoke that power because they need to maintain their political/socio-economical relations with the EU and other nations.
They don't want to seem like massive assholes by flipping everyone off, or something? That is the whole point. The UK has the power to ignore EU set rules at any point if they want. And always has had and always will have and can never, under any circumstances, no matter what they do, not have. That's what makes the sovereignty argument so silly. It's like if a part of your brain started going "you don't have the power to hit yourself in the face, you don't really have any free will at all" and over time more and more of your brain started doing it and you eventually tap yourself in the face and it goes "no, like really hit yourself, you have to punch yourself in the face to prove free will" and eventually you break and give into the voices and smash yourself in the face and you're left there, bloody nosed and eyes watering crying out "ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?!?!" to which the voices in your head simply reply "fucking immigrants".
The point is almost all countries on earth can do the same. Nothing special about UK. North Korea does this shit to everyone on daily basis. There is no need for Queen or some special power of parliment for this,
|
On July 08 2016 03:13 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:31 Gorsameth wrote:On July 08 2016 02:23 xM(Z wrote:On July 08 2016 02:19 KwarK wrote:
Wait, how am I even still arguing this? Read the fucking quote about how parliamentary sovereignty works. It may not be the way things work in your nation but it's the way we do it in the UK. i'm arguing that it doesn't matter if a rule exists if no one follows it. you telling me that UK parliament invokes article 50 out of politeness makes me chuckle. International treaties exist by the virtue of both sides cooperating with it and the threat of action from one of the two if they stop. Since the EU is not going to invade the UK there is very little the EU can do to punish the UK if they simply quit tomorrow. So yes, following through with the official way to leave the EU compared to saying "tomorrow none of your rules apply anymore" is in a large part politeness. Trade sanctions are a thing. If a country started ignoring treaties, they should consider a life without imports and exports, especially since other trade partners would avoid doing trade with them, too. The EU can't "force" a country to follow the treaties, but they can refuse to trade with such a country, which would be devastating for the economy of that country.
Unlikely.
There is no point for other EU countries to sanction the UK other than to be a dick. If the EU stops trading with the UK the EU will miss out too. Trading benefits both parties.
There might be short term effects coming from disgruntled EU politicians but in the long term they want to keep the trade with the UK going. Of course, when the UK leaves the single market the EU will try to get better trade deals (better for the EU that is).
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 08 2016 03:32 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 02:39 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2016 02:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 08 2016 02:29 Uldridge wrote:
I think that's not what he's arguing, I think he's arguing that, even though they do have the power, they prefer not to invoke that power because they need to maintain their political/socio-economical relations with the EU and other nations.
They don't want to seem like massive assholes by flipping everyone off, or something? That is the whole point. The UK has the power to ignore EU set rules at any point if they want. And always has had and always will have and can never, under any circumstances, no matter what they do, not have. That's what makes the sovereignty argument so silly. It's like if a part of your brain started going "you don't have the power to hit yourself in the face, you don't really have any free will at all" and over time more and more of your brain started doing it and you eventually tap yourself in the face and it goes "no, like really hit yourself, you have to punch yourself in the face to prove free will" and eventually you break and give into the voices and smash yourself in the face and you're left there, bloody nosed and eyes watering crying out "ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?!?!" to which the voices in your head simply reply "fucking immigrants". The point is almost all countries on earth can do the same. Nothing special about UK. North Korea does this shit to everyone on daily basis. There is no need for Queen or some special power of parliment for this,
North Korea is a good example of a country ruled by an absolute power. However you're basically wrong, North Korea, like the United Kingdom, is an exception. The vast majority of countries on earth have a constitution that defines and limits the powers of the various different bodies. For example in the United States there is no sovereign body, or rather the people are sovereign and their sovereign power is divided between various bodies to be wielded collectively. Most countries have a similar setup in which a constitution defines the limits of power, guarantees rights such as the right to a fair trial and so forth which the legislative cannot infringe upon. The British Parliament, as the wielders of the absolute power of the monarch, could theoretically dissolve the right to a fair trial tomorrow. In practice they would not because it is composed of democratically elected individuals but when Thatcher was fighting the unions freedom of movement was suspended and when Churchill was fighting the Nazis elections themselves were suspended. If there was a need for it due process could be suspended indefinitely with no constitutional issues because nothing, not even the fundamentals of a free society, are outside the powers of parliamentary sovereignty.
This is clearly a very difficult concept for many people who are not British and whose countries are built with the model of a social contract, as pretty much every country founded after the French revolution has been. If you still believe "almost all countries on earth can do the same", well, you're just not getting it. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty is a fossil in a world dominated by constitutionally defined power.
|
On July 07 2016 22:05 sCuMBaG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 21:35 BurningSera wrote:On July 07 2016 10:30 bardtown wrote:
To all the bitter europhiles, do please try to understand that we knew the pound would fall and that investment would slow in the short term. A mere three percent of leave voters named the economy as their primary concern as opposed to fifty-three percent for sovereignty. I know it must be tempting for you to blame the British people for this result, but nothing comes from nothing, and, shockingly, that includes mass popular discontent with a political institution. The EU is the primary cause of discontent with the EU. Obviously. They need to take responsibility.
The EU is a plastic construction that holds the institutions of ancient nations and the will of their peoples in contempt. Without very, very substantial scaling back of its ambitions, it has no future. The problem is that it is designed in such a way as to bypass the will of the people, and is populated with second-rate ideologues who put their dream of a united Europe first, every single time. The threat of Brexit was not enough to persuade them to scale back, and neither was research showing that the majority of people in Europe outside of the UK want to stop/reverse integration. So there will be no scaling back, and that leaves disintegration as the only option.
Short term economic instability is the price we have to pay for breaking loose from a broken organisation. That the British people decided to take this risk demonstrates:
a) Severe discontent with the EU and its practices.
b) Self confidence.
c) Principles overriding fear. That sounds beautiful and all patriotic etc (not being sarcastic here). But the current key issue is that we have no plans or whatsoever for brexit at all. So are we supposed to be like 'oh we will figure it out, no worries'. This is 2016. A lot of people don't understand what is happening anyways. I gave up on trying to explain stuff Just a little reminder: The UK will want access to the single market. The negotiations will end up with the UK agreeing to free movement of people & finances. The UK will have to agree on implementing the vast majority of EU legislation. Effectively the UK will be part of the EU with almost exactly the same responsibilities, but no darn influence on future politics/legislation whatsoever.
I am talking about policy change proposals, analytical/evaluation reports, regulations adjustment in finance/business etc 'actual plans', not some 'empty talks' like the 3 points you said there, how do you achieve them, anyone actually started to work on the preparation/nagotiation works. Not to say all that should have been done before we had a referendum, at very least, a scientific evaluation on how much price we are going to pay after deciding to leave EU, but we get all the rubbish propaganda instead. We literally did it like breaking up with someone, with a 2-year notice. We don't even know they will actually trigger article 50 at this stage and i am not surprised if they announced to make a second referendum tomorrow.
This whole thing is a mess, period. No matter how many fancy words people try to slap on it. In 50 years time, we will look back and either praise or curse this leaving EU decision, nobody knows the definite outcome. While for now, the average person like us/me/you will pay the price for the change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
