|
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 |
On July 08 2016 05:51 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 03:13 Morfildur wrote: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).
The ones i highlighted there are the points i dont get how can people even talk about them when we have absolutely nothing to base on currently.
How 'short term effects' is short term? Goddamn we literally just came out from recession less than 3 years time and now we are going to another 'short term effects', 5 years 10 years? I am in this late 20s age group so you can imagine the frustration here. Career development, buying property, raising a family etc, brexit put instability/high risk in everyone from 20-40 years old.
And a better deal? I really doubt US/China (and maybe India) too will not take the advantage of the fact that UK has no EU at the back now ie maybe UK needs them more so than ever, and why would they cut a 'better deal' for UK. Either way I don't see how UK will pay less than brexit to everything.
This all goes back to my point again: 'This is 2016, not 1970'. UK is not the sun-never-set nation anymore.
|
I said the EU will probably try to get a better deal for itself at the cost of the UK. Iff the UK leaves the single market it will become competition. Trade deals with other EU countries will need to be made. Trading within the single market is very simple and fair. But outside of the single market you can create all sorts of deals. I would not be surprised if the EU is using its position of power to really screw over the UK in trade deals. The UK is so dependent on imports from the EU that the UK can not afford to not trade. The EU knows this so they can drive a hard bargain.
|
So no one won political promotion to campaign for Brexit? Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson are all out. There is a saying in my language, it is something like: "No one is able to do to you what you do to yourself". In other words, if you screw yourself, no one else can surpass that.
|
Isn't Leadsom a Brexiteer? But yeah backstabbing your friends (Johnson/ Gove) doesn't make you very popular.
|
On July 08 2016 01:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 00:50 WhiteDog wrote:On July 08 2016 00:33 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2016 00:22 WhiteDog wrote:On July 08 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2016 00:06 WhiteDog wrote:On July 07 2016 23:31 KwarK 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. The British constitution allows for no transfer of sovereignty and any transfer of sovereignty that may appear is but the willful illusion of a transfer. All sovereignty in the United Kingdom springs from the person of the monarch. It could no more be divided than the person of Queen Elizabeth II herself. The British government might agree to consider itself bound by European law, as indeed it previously has done, but that does not mean that it is bound by European law, only that it chooses to consider itself to be bound. This is an important distinction. It can, at any time and for any reason, choose to no longer consider itself bound. Those who fear the loss of sovereignty to Europe would do well to remember this. Your argument have no value really, the queen does not have any power, she might be the "monarch" but she can't even name a prime minister that does not have the majority in parliament... Can and has, Cameron didn't have an absolute majority in the parliament before this one, it was a coalition with the Lib Dems and yet he was still named Prime Minister. Literally the most recent PM. But thanks for showing your understanding of UK politics for us all. As for whether or not the queen has any power, of course all her power is wielded by elected officials, we're a democracy, if the queen was just doing what the fuck she liked all the time we'd not be a democracy. You think I don't know that the UK is a democracy? It doesn't matter if the queen wields her powers or if she allows others to wield them, that doesn't change the fundamental point that the person of the monarch is the source of all sovereignty. That is why parliament cannot impose any limitation on themselves or a future parliament, it is because parliament wield the powers of the monarch which are limitless and indivisible. The nature of the UK constitution precludes any division or transfer or powers. It simply cannot exist because the foundation it is all built on are the absolute powers of the monarch, wielded by parliament. A monarch may voluntarily agree not to do something or to allow another to do something but it is always within their power to change their mind. Do you understand it now? You're playing on words, majority either directly or through coalition this is the same. I wonder what would happen if a monarch in modern UK decide to elect a prime minister that does not have any support in the parliament. The queen does not have the "power", it's just a play on words again, and in fact the monarchy fought against the parliament, in the UK and everywhere else, before accepting it, because they lost power through this change : they did not "voluntarily decided to allow the british parliament to decide on things" like it's some simple and happy division of labor. It's a power struggle they lost 200 years ago. Your point is entirely irrelevant, and again you misunderstand what is a democracy (like many in here) or what is sovereignty for that matter. Going back to europe, the UK did not "voluntarily" agree to pass on certain powers and is not "always in power to change their minds" : in fact, there are clear restriction and constraint put on national government to make sure they respect the law coming from europe and they can't reject a law that they feel is not beneficial to their citizens freely. You have no understanding of the British uncodified constitution if you really believe that Parliament couldn't unilaterally vote to dissolve all European law in the United Kingdom tomorrow. It is all voluntary and illusory. This isn't a debate we're having here, this is simply my attempt to educate you on how sovereignty within the United Kingdom works. You can continue to disagree if you like but you will be wrong. I think you have knowledge of how europe works. A firm can decided not to pay its tax too, but it will face repercussion : it's not a free and unbound decision. Europe would never allow one of its member to freely dissolve european laws, in fact europe punish daily countries for not totally retranscripting european laws at a good pace. And countries voluntarily agree to be punished because they think maintaining the illusion that the EU has that power is worth accepting the punishment. A firm is not a sovereign entity, a country is. The comparison is invalid. You're just not getting this. It's like you're trying to argue that a triangle can have four sides and using the example of a square. This isn't a debate, this is you making a fool of yourself.
It's funny how you play on words. Only a guy like you can make it seem like there is no change in the national sovereignty within the europe.
And, more than that, it's very funny that you think that there is different definition of sovereignty in UK and that it is in the constitution.
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.
It's a play on words that does not mean anything. The same exact thing can be said about any region in the world : scotland is in the UK because it voted this way, and can, at any moment, go away. Sure, but nobody argue that the UK has no sovereignty over scotland because it would be silly ; you don't understand what is behind the idea of sovereignty. As long as the UK recognize the right, for the EU institution, to have any kind of power on the country, then it effectively restrict its sovereignty : any action from the UK can be met with resistance or interference from the EU i.e. it is not entirely sovereign.
I have a little clue for you : it's not a bad thing. There are plenty of writters and thinkers, from Montesquieu to Derrida, who argued that full sovereignty is problematic and that sovereignty should always have limits. It's actually one of our key democratic principle - no one man or institution has complete sovereignty over UK (unless you actually continue to believe that the queen has all the real powers). The only question in regards to EU is that the institutions with which the UK share a part of its sovereignty does not reside in the same territory, does not belong to the same nation.
What you linked previously about parliament sovereignty (here : https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/ ) clearly state that even this parliament sovereignty application is limited, as the parliament passed laws "that reflect political developments both within and outside the UK" - so when a parliament do pass laws and share powers with other institutions, they effectively lose sovereignty (or limit their sovereignty) even if they effectively have the theorical right to go back and change the legislation, at all time.
And by the way, here is what wiki has to say about parliamentary sovereignty :
The European Communities Act 1972 gave Community legislation the force of law in the United Kingdom:[20] section 2(1) reads: "All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties... are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed".[21] Section 18 of the European Union Act 2011 declares that EU law is directly applicable only through the European Communities Act or another act fulfilling the same role.[22]
The case of R v. Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame is considered decisive as to the superiority of EU law over British law. It judged that the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (which prevented an injunction against the crown) should be disapplied. Alongside R v Employment Secretary, ex parte EOC, these two cases establish that any national legislation, coming into force before or after the European Communities Act 1972, cannot be applied by British courts if it contradicts Community law.[23]
The Factortame case was considered to be revolutionary by Sir William Wade, who cited in particular Lord Bridge's statement that "there is nothing in any way novel in according supremacy to rules of Community law in areas to which they apply and to insist that... national courts must not be prohibited by rules of national law from granting interim relief in appropriate cases is no more than a logical recognition of that supremacy", which Wade characterises a clear statement that parliament can bind its successors and is therefore a very significant break from traditional thinking.[24] Trevor Allan, argued, however, that the change in rule was accepted by the existing order because of strong legal reasons. Since legal reasons existed, the House of Lords had, instead, determined what the current system suggested under new circumstances and so no revolution had occurred.[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 08 2016 10:37 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 01:11 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2016 00:50 WhiteDog wrote:On July 08 2016 00:33 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2016 00:22 WhiteDog wrote:On July 08 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:On July 08 2016 00:06 WhiteDog wrote:On July 07 2016 23:31 KwarK 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. The British constitution allows for no transfer of sovereignty and any transfer of sovereignty that may appear is but the willful illusion of a transfer. All sovereignty in the United Kingdom springs from the person of the monarch. It could no more be divided than the person of Queen Elizabeth II herself. The British government might agree to consider itself bound by European law, as indeed it previously has done, but that does not mean that it is bound by European law, only that it chooses to consider itself to be bound. This is an important distinction. It can, at any time and for any reason, choose to no longer consider itself bound. Those who fear the loss of sovereignty to Europe would do well to remember this. Your argument have no value really, the queen does not have any power, she might be the "monarch" but she can't even name a prime minister that does not have the majority in parliament... Can and has, Cameron didn't have an absolute majority in the parliament before this one, it was a coalition with the Lib Dems and yet he was still named Prime Minister. Literally the most recent PM. But thanks for showing your understanding of UK politics for us all. As for whether or not the queen has any power, of course all her power is wielded by elected officials, we're a democracy, if the queen was just doing what the fuck she liked all the time we'd not be a democracy. You think I don't know that the UK is a democracy? It doesn't matter if the queen wields her powers or if she allows others to wield them, that doesn't change the fundamental point that the person of the monarch is the source of all sovereignty. That is why parliament cannot impose any limitation on themselves or a future parliament, it is because parliament wield the powers of the monarch which are limitless and indivisible. The nature of the UK constitution precludes any division or transfer or powers. It simply cannot exist because the foundation it is all built on are the absolute powers of the monarch, wielded by parliament. A monarch may voluntarily agree not to do something or to allow another to do something but it is always within their power to change their mind. Do you understand it now? You're playing on words, majority either directly or through coalition this is the same. I wonder what would happen if a monarch in modern UK decide to elect a prime minister that does not have any support in the parliament. The queen does not have the "power", it's just a play on words again, and in fact the monarchy fought against the parliament, in the UK and everywhere else, before accepting it, because they lost power through this change : they did not "voluntarily decided to allow the british parliament to decide on things" like it's some simple and happy division of labor. It's a power struggle they lost 200 years ago. Your point is entirely irrelevant, and again you misunderstand what is a democracy (like many in here) or what is sovereignty for that matter. Going back to europe, the UK did not "voluntarily" agree to pass on certain powers and is not "always in power to change their minds" : in fact, there are clear restriction and constraint put on national government to make sure they respect the law coming from europe and they can't reject a law that they feel is not beneficial to their citizens freely. You have no understanding of the British uncodified constitution if you really believe that Parliament couldn't unilaterally vote to dissolve all European law in the United Kingdom tomorrow. It is all voluntary and illusory. This isn't a debate we're having here, this is simply my attempt to educate you on how sovereignty within the United Kingdom works. You can continue to disagree if you like but you will be wrong. I think you have knowledge of how europe works. A firm can decided not to pay its tax too, but it will face repercussion : it's not a free and unbound decision. Europe would never allow one of its member to freely dissolve european laws, in fact europe punish daily countries for not totally retranscripting european laws at a good pace. And countries voluntarily agree to be punished because they think maintaining the illusion that the EU has that power is worth accepting the punishment. A firm is not a sovereign entity, a country is. The comparison is invalid. You're just not getting this. It's like you're trying to argue that a triangle can have four sides and using the example of a square. This isn't a debate, this is you making a fool of yourself. It's funny how you play on words. Only a guy like you can make it seem like there is no change in the national sovereignty within the europe. And, more than that, it's very funny that you think that there is different definition of sovereignty in UK and that it is in the constitution. 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. It's a play on words that does not mean anything. The same exact thing can be said about any region in the world : scotland is in the UK because it voted this way, and can, at any moment, go away. Sure, but nobody argue that the UK has no sovereignty over scotland because it would be silly ; you don't understand what is behind the idea of sovereignty. As long as the UK recognize the right, for the EU institution, to have any kind of power on the country, then it effectively restrict its sovereignty : any action from the UK can be met with resistance or interference from the EU i.e. it is not entirely sovereign. I have a little clue for you : it's not a bad thing. There are plenty of writters and thinkers, from Montesquieu to Derrida, who argued that full sovereignty is problematic and that sovereignty should always have limits. It's actually one of our key democratic principle - no one man or institution has complete sovereignty over UK (unless you actually continue to believe that the queen has all the real powers). The only question in regards to EU is that the institutions with which the UK share a part of its sovereignty does not reside in the same territory, does not belong to the same nation. What you linked previously about parliament sovereignty (here : https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/ ) clearly state that even this parliament sovereignty application is limited, as the parliament passed laws " that reflect political developments both within and outside the UK" - so when a parliament do pass laws and share powers with other institutions, they effectively lose sovereignty (or limit their sovereignty) even if they effectively have the theorical right to go back and change the legislation, at all time. And by the way, here is what wiki has to say about parliamentary sovereignty : Show nested quote +The European Communities Act 1972 gave Community legislation the force of law in the United Kingdom:[20] section 2(1) reads: "All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties... are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed".[21] Section 18 of the European Union Act 2011 declares that EU law is directly applicable only through the European Communities Act or another act fulfilling the same role.[22]
The case of R v. Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame is considered decisive as to the superiority of EU law over British law. It judged that the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and section 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (which prevented an injunction against the crown) should be disapplied. Alongside R v Employment Secretary, ex parte EOC, these two cases establish that any national legislation, coming into force before or after the European Communities Act 1972, cannot be applied by British courts if it contradicts Community law.[23]
The Factortame case was considered to be revolutionary by Sir William Wade, who cited in particular Lord Bridge's statement that "there is nothing in any way novel in according supremacy to rules of Community law in areas to which they apply and to insist that... national courts must not be prohibited by rules of national law from granting interim relief in appropriate cases is no more than a logical recognition of that supremacy", which Wade characterises a clear statement that parliament can bind its successors and is therefore a very significant break from traditional thinking.[24] Trevor Allan, argued, however, that the change in rule was accepted by the existing order because of strong legal reasons. Since legal reasons existed, the House of Lords had, instead, determined what the current system suggested under new circumstances and so no revolution had occurred.[25] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom
You're somehow still not getting it but I am past trying to explain it to you.
|
On July 08 2016 07:15 BurningSera wrote:
Career development, buying property, raising a family etc, brexit put instability/high risk in everyone from 20-40 years old.
And a better deal? I really doubt US/China (and maybe India) too will not take the advantage of the fact that UK has no EU at the back now ie maybe UK needs them more so than ever, and why would they cut a 'better deal' for UK. Either way I don't see how UK will pay less than brexit to everything.
This all goes back to my point again: 'This is 2016, not 1970'. UK is not the sun-never-set nation anymore.
If the UK and global economies were in good shape (low debt) then brexit would change nothing.
Sadly the UK and the rest of the west has been in a giant credit/debt bubble that has been building for the past 40 years.This is why house prices have become so insane, especially around London.
The years ahead will be incredibly tough.But they have to happen, to allow house prices to return to sane levels, for the budget deficit, current account deficit and trade deficit to return to the levels they were prior to the early 80s.
People need to stop blaming Brexit for a recession caused by underlying economic issues that have been worsening for the past four decades.You talk about wanting stability when purchasing property please just look at this chart.Then realise there is NO WAY to bring house prices back to SANE LEVELS without a severe recession/depression.
LONDON FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PRICE - SOURCE : NATIONWIDE
1995 Q4 : £61,522
2015 Q4 : £401,212
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cmx3pMxWYAA0XDS.jpg)
|
|
|
come on dude, we banned those radicals years ago, they should've disappeared/gone extinct by now ...
|
On July 08 2016 19:33 xM(Z wrote:
come on dude, we banned those radicals years ago, they should've disappeared/gone extinct by now ...
We can only hope....
At the Pro-EU rally a week ago...
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmW9Nk4WYAAxc1E.jpg)
|
Wowie! It's like both sides have despicable people in it! Too bad nuance is a problem for both sides.
|
Pssst, don't disrupt their echochamber, they are enjoying themselves.
|
On July 08 2016 22:25 Uldridge wrote:
Wowie! It's like both sides have despicable people in it! Too bad nuance is a problem for both sides.
who are the sides and whether or not sides exist, does not matter. it matters only the side who rules. it and only it is responsible for educating the lot of them. + Show Spoiler +i blame the lefties for everything
|
U.K. opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn challenged his detractors to stand a candidate against him as he sought to end a revolt that’s forced him to share spokesman roles among a dwindling group of supporters in Parliament.
Labour Party lawmakers in the House of Commons have the support required to trigger a leadership election but have held off declaring their candidate -- expected to be Angela Eagle -- following a surge in new party members supporting Corbyn. The beleaguered leader has cited his election in September by a majority of the membership as a mandate to stay in the job.
Members of Parliament “need to respect the democracy of our party and the views of Labour’s membership, which has increased by more than 100,000 to over half a million in the past fortnight alone,” Corbyn said Friday in an article for the Guardian newspaper. “Those who want to challenge my leadership are free to do so in a democratic contest, in which I will be a candidate.”
Corbyn lost a vote of confidence among his party’s lawmakers by 172 votes to 40 last month, a level that would have seen most other leaders resign from their post. They described his performance in the European Union referendum campaign as lackluster and accused him of being an ineffective leader and strategist, fearing that his hard-line socialist brand of politics will lead the party to a third consecutive defeat in the next general election.
In his article, Corbyn called for “leadership and a clear strategy” from Labour to protect the interests of working people as Britain negotiates its exit from the EU.
www.bloomberg.com
I don't get this reasoning. Don't the labour voters who voted for the lawmakers count? Don't the law makers have a way bigger democratic mandate? People only use democracy when it suits them.
|
United States43989 Posts
On July 08 2016 23:11 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +U.K. opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn challenged his detractors to stand a candidate against him as he sought to end a revolt that’s forced him to share spokesman roles among a dwindling group of supporters in Parliament.
Labour Party lawmakers in the House of Commons have the support required to trigger a leadership election but have held off declaring their candidate -- expected to be Angela Eagle -- following a surge in new party members supporting Corbyn. The beleaguered leader has cited his election in September by a majority of the membership as a mandate to stay in the job.
Members of Parliament “need to respect the democracy of our party and the views of Labour’s membership, which has increased by more than 100,000 to over half a million in the past fortnight alone,” Corbyn said Friday in an article for the Guardian newspaper. “Those who want to challenge my leadership are free to do so in a democratic contest, in which I will be a candidate.”
Corbyn lost a vote of confidence among his party’s lawmakers by 172 votes to 40 last month, a level that would have seen most other leaders resign from their post. They described his performance in the European Union referendum campaign as lackluster and accused him of being an ineffective leader and strategist, fearing that his hard-line socialist brand of politics will lead the party to a third consecutive defeat in the next general election.
In his article, Corbyn called for “leadership and a clear strategy” from Labour to protect the interests of working people as Britain negotiates its exit from the EU. www.bloomberg.comI don't get this reasoning. Don't the labour voters who voted for the lawmakers count? Don't the law makers have a way bigger democratic mandate? People only use democracy when it suits them.
Britain is a representative democracy in which the involvement of the people generally ends after they have elected an MP. What the MPs subsequently do has traditionally been the domain of party politics, not public politics. But the political parties all have their own ways of selecting a leader. It's not a very democratic structure, especially after the rise of party politics limited the way in which you could have a personal relationship with or understanding of your local MP. Rather than voting for a MP that you believe will do a good job of representing you and your local interests you instead vote for whichever candidate is a part of the party you broadly agree with best which fucks it up somewhat. Political parties aren't great for democracy.
|
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so..
|
On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so..
Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems.
It is also the best system we have been able to come up with.
|
On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with.
Some referendums/elections will definitely benefit from higher education requirement... Otherwise, you end up with this:
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/polish-family-in-plymouth-terrorised-by-racist-arsonists-who-left-note-saying-go-home/story-29488159-detail/story.html
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/eu-rats-told-go-home-in-graffiti-daubed-on-health-centre-wall-in-fallout-from-brexit-vote/story-29483158-detail/story.html
|
On July 09 2016 02:04 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Some referendums/elections will definitely benefit from higher education requirement... Otherwise, you end up with this: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/polish-family-in-plymouth-terrorised-by-racist-arsonists-who-left-note-saying-go-home/story-29488159-detail/story.htmlhttp://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/eu-rats-told-go-home-in-graffiti-daubed-on-health-centre-wall-in-fallout-from-brexit-vote/story-29483158-detail/story.html
education != intelligence or knowledge.
See a certain neurosurgeon presidential candidate who thinks the pyramids were grain silo's.
The problem with deciding to limit certain peoples voting rights is that before long the people making the decisions start to believe that those who disagree with them are not worthy of voting.
It sounds like a great idea because lack of voter knowledge is indeed a major problem but it never works out in the end.
|
On July 09 2016 02:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:04 Shield wrote:On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Some referendums/elections will definitely benefit from higher education requirement... Otherwise, you end up with this: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/polish-family-in-plymouth-terrorised-by-racist-arsonists-who-left-note-saying-go-home/story-29488159-detail/story.htmlhttp://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/eu-rats-told-go-home-in-graffiti-daubed-on-health-centre-wall-in-fallout-from-brexit-vote/story-29483158-detail/story.html education != intelligence or knowledge. See a certain neurosurgeon presidential candidate who thinks the pyramids were grain silo's. The problem with deciding to limit certain peoples voting rights is that before long the people making the decisions start to believe that those who disagree with them are not worthy of voting. It sounds like a great idea because lack of voter knowledge is indeed a major problem but it never works out in the end.
As I said last time, this requirement will not get rid of 100% of idiots. It will just make it harder for such people to shit on a country and its residents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
