|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 22, 2024 20:03:48 GMT
That is moot as indicated by Orac above. The proper authority in a democratic society is the electorate and they have demonstrated time and again what authority they are granting when they were asked. So we don't need rules, regulations or laws. Hmm, interesting. Democracy is predicated on rules, regulations and laws in a consensual way with the electorate. It is not a case of vote and then watch one's chosen representation not only not representing you but actively representing the opposite to what he said. Thatcher had the power to impose the poll tax, the riots put paid to that as it demonstrated opposition despite her having a clear majority to enact the community charge. There has been clear opposition to migrant crossings as noted by polls, by votes for other parties and by similar riots to the poll tax variety. I do not agree that part of the democratic process is the breaking of laws but it seems to work for some and I have no recollection of Thatcher imposing draconian justice on the miscreants. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 22, 2024 21:02:51 GMT
What attack would that be, little one? Sorry Coco. Can't play today. Find yourself a ball or something. |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Nov 22, 2024 21:09:10 GMT
What attack would that be, little one? Sorry Coco. Can't play today. Find yourself a ball or something. ? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 22, 2024 22:24:16 GMT
So we don't need rules, regulations or laws. Hmm, interesting. Thatcher had the power to impose the poll tax, the riots put paid to that as it demonstrated opposition despite her having a clear majority to enact the community charge. There has been clear opposition to migrant crossings as noted by polls, by votes for other parties and by similar riots to the poll tax variety. I do not agree that part of the democratic process is the breaking of laws but it seems to work for some and I have no recollection of Thatcher imposing draconian justice on the miscreants. You waste your time and that of readers and posters on this forum with your contrived posts. The government cannot just ignore the Laws on asylum seekers, that is just Rightist thinking. I'm sure something will be done eventually, but if it was easy, without repercussions, it would have been done by now. Thatcher's Poll Tax was her baby, nothing to do with laws outside of her control. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 22, 2024 22:30:27 GMT
I might agree with you if you can quote a period of mass migration into the UK in the earlier post 1960s era, that is equal to the influx of asylum seekers since the mid 2,000s. As far as I know, no point i made rested on that - so this is junk So you accept that the main problem on migration is the huge increase of later day asylum seekers, fine. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 22, 2024 22:52:50 GMT
Democracy is predicated on rules, regulations and laws in a consensual way with the electorate. It is not a case of vote and then watch one's chosen representation not only not representing you but actively representing the opposite to what he said. Thatcher had the power to impose the poll tax, the riots put paid to that as it demonstrated opposition despite her having a clear majority to enact the community charge. There has been clear opposition to migrant crossings as noted by polls, by votes for other parties and by similar riots to the poll tax variety. I do not agree that part of the democratic process is the breaking of laws but it seems to work for some and I have no recollection of Thatcher imposing draconian justice on the miscreants. You waste your time and that of readers and posters on this forum with your contrived posts. The government cannot just ignore the Laws on asylum seekers, that is just Rightist thinking. I'm sure something will be done eventually, but if it was easy, without repercussions, it would have been done by now. Thatcher's Poll Tax was her baby, nothing to do with laws outside of her control. If laws are outside the control of our government then we have no democracy. One cannot have both democratic representation and the inability to enact the wishes of the electorate. Also let us be honest it is not a real inability it is a chosen inability as any law can be modified in a sovereign parliament or if it arrives from outside rejected or ignored. Parliament is not bound by the agreements of previous parliaments, it can ignore or rescind any law it so chooses. The fact it chooses not to speaks volumes. It was the breaking of the laws by sections of the electorate who rioted that put paid to the poll tax which was a manifesto commitment and approved by the electorate. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Nov 22, 2024 23:33:21 GMT
You waste your time and that of readers and posters on this forum with your contrived posts. The government cannot just ignore the Laws on asylum seekers, that is just Rightist thinking. I'm sure something will be done eventually, but if it was easy, without repercussions, it would have been done by now. Thatcher's Poll Tax was her baby, nothing to do with laws outside of her control. If laws are outside the control of our government then we have no democracy. One cannot have both democratic representation and the inability to enact the wishes of the electorate. Also let us be honest it is not a real inability it is a chosen inability as any law can be modified in a sovereign parliament or if it arrives from outside rejected or ignored. Parliament is not bound by the agreements of previous parliaments, it can ignore or rescind any law it so chooses. The fact it chooses not to speaks volumes. It was the breaking of the laws by sections of the electorate who rioted that put paid to the poll tax which was a manifesto commitment and approved by the electorate. So if the Russian people wanted to annexe Ukraine they should do so because that's the will of the people? 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 23, 2024 0:09:46 GMT
If laws are outside the control of our government then we have no democracy. One cannot have both democratic representation and the inability to enact the wishes of the electorate. Also let us be honest it is not a real inability it is a chosen inability as any law can be modified in a sovereign parliament or if it arrives from outside rejected or ignored. Parliament is not bound by the agreements of previous parliaments, it can ignore or rescind any law it so chooses. The fact it chooses not to speaks volumes. It was the breaking of the laws by sections of the electorate who rioted that put paid to the poll tax which was a manifesto commitment and approved by the electorate. So if the Russian people wanted to annexe Ukraine they should do so because that's the will of the people? 🤔 Yet another post that flew over andria's head. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 23, 2024 0:53:38 GMT
So if the Russian people wanted to annexe Ukraine they should do so because that's the will of the people? 🤔 Yet another post that flew over andria's head. Indeed. “ A government should be able to enact the wishes of the electorate.” Leftie “so if the electorate wants to eat babies the government should allow it ?” jeez 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 23, 2024 0:59:49 GMT
As far as I know, no point i made rested on that - so this is junk So you accept that the main problem on migration is the huge increase of later day asylum seekers, fine. My point doesn't rest on that being true or untrue. This is what is known as a non sequitur |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 8:02:28 GMT
Yet another post that flew over andria's head. Indeed. “ A government should be able to enact the wishes of the electorate.” Leftie “so if the electorate wants to eat babies the government should allow it ?” jeez 😁 And if the people want to break international law the government should comply? Fact is a sovereign government can decide to not comply with an internationally agreed law, but they have to be aware that there are consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 23, 2024 8:08:18 GMT
Indeed. “ A government should be able to enact the wishes of the electorate.” Leftie “so if the electorate wants to eat babies the government should allow it ?” jeez 😁 And if the people want to break international law the government should comply? Fact is a sovereign government can decide to not comply with an internationally agreed law, but they have to be aware that there are consequences. 'International Law' is only the agreements that the UK Government agree to sign up to. If for example they decided to withdraw from the 1951 Refugee Convention there would be no International Law applicable in the UK on the rights of refugees, |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 23, 2024 8:12:48 GMT
If laws are outside the control of our government then we have no democracy. One cannot have both democratic representation and the inability to enact the wishes of the electorate. Also let us be honest it is not a real inability it is a chosen inability as any law can be modified in a sovereign parliament or if it arrives from outside rejected or ignored. Parliament is not bound by the agreements of previous parliaments, it can ignore or rescind any law it so chooses. The fact it chooses not to speaks volumes. It was the breaking of the laws by sections of the electorate who rioted that put paid to the poll tax which was a manifesto commitment and approved by the electorate. So if the Russian people wanted to annexe Ukraine they should do so because that's the will of the people? 🤔 Perhaps not but you are being disingenuous here. The democratic process applies to laws that act upon the electorate and restrict their government within their own borders. If law is made at some location other than parliament and restricts the actions of the British electorate then that is law without representation. Your suggestion indicates eventually the possibility that if International Law decides that the Ukraine should be annexed by Russia then that should go ahead. No use saying international law will never do that as currently we have all sorts of iniquities being considered in the name of International law. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 8:30:22 GMT
And if the people want to break international law the government should comply? Fact is a sovereign government can decide to not comply with an internationally agreed law, but they have to be aware that there are consequences. 'International Law' is only the agreements that the UK Government agree to sign up to. If for example they decided to withdraw from the 1951 Refugee Convention there would be no International Law applicable in the UK on the rights of refugees, Absolutely, that's what I said, but you don't get to make your own rules and still stay in the club. So would we be happy to leave the UN, so we can cherry pick which bits we want? Would we be happy for much of the Western world to consider us a pariah state, or an unsafe investment because we defy international laws at a whim. As I said, consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 23, 2024 8:33:43 GMT
So if the Russian people wanted to annexe Ukraine they should do so because that's the will of the people? 🤔 Perhaps not but you are being disingenuous here. The democratic process applies to laws that act upon the electorate and restrict their government within their own borders. If law is made at some location other than parliament and restricts the actions of the British electorate then that is law without representation. Your suggestion indicates eventually the possibility that if International Law decides that the Ukraine should be annexed by Russia then that should go ahead. No use saying international law will never do that as currently we have all sorts of iniquities being considered in the name of International law. I disagree with your whole argument, that if you can't change everything and anything you don't have democracy. The exaggerated examples underline this point. |
|
