UKIP - The Future - Volume 2

[Mr Snap]

NoNeed said:

Mr Snap said:

All Europeans (sic) salaries?

I am not really getting anywhere with this argument. Therefore I'd better make an ad hominem attack to divert attention from the point.

EFA

[NoNeed]

Mr Snap said:

NoNeed said:

Mr Snap said:

All Europeans (sic) salaries?

I am not really getting anywhere with this argument. Therefore I'd better make an ad hominem attack to divert attention from the point.

EFA

There was no point though was there? You knew what was meant by Europeans (i.e those in the European parliament)but decided on your own version because you are twisted.

[Mrr T]

Mr Snap said:

A small country like Switzerland is better able to manage referenda. The system in Switzerland has taken nearly two hundred years to develop to it's current stage, it's part of their culture. Moving the UK to such a system in two years would be as mad as one of Lenin's Five Year Plans. Political and social changes require generations to accomplish, otherwise the rules of unexpected consequences apply. I'm not in favour of rapid political change in any direction. It would take no account of the traditional british way, consequently you're talking revolution in the proper sense of the word. People get hurt in revolutions.

While the document does include ways of improving British democracy such as local referendums. These do not effect the exit plan so the 2 year time frame does not matter. You do realise California also has regular referendum.

Mr Snap said:

Besides, it'd be nigh impossible to run an economy the size of ours when rules are being changed every five minutes. In addition to this, such a swift change would only bring out the nutters - such as the hanging brigade. Much time will be wasted on trivialities and in all likelihood the Murdoch press would end up driving policy. Is that what you want?

There is no suggest the referendum will be on every trading standard but on local council budgets. You do know councils already need to have a referendum on increasing council tax by more than 2%.

Mr Snap said:

I don't care what Dr North has written, he's not a constitutional lawyer. Not one constitutional lawyer was involved in that document and, as you point out, it was done on the cheap. If I wanted to change the constitution, I'd use the best minds going, they don't do it on the cheap for a very good reason.

You do realise the exit plan has nothing to do with constitutional law.

Mr Snap said:

I too have published books. It doesn't make me any better qualified to solve the most difficult constitutional problem the UK would have faced since the dissolution of the monasteries; that was a bloody revolution too.
If I'm an idiot, so are you.

[Mr Snap]

NoNeed said:

here was no point though was there? You knew what was meant by Europeans (i.e those in the European parliament)but decided on your own version because you are twisted.

No.

I was drawing attention to the fact that, disregarding the misspelling, what you said wasn't what you meant. You said that Nigel wanted all MEP's to have no salary. You didn't say UK MEP's, you said the whole lot.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought his beef was about the UK. Does he want to close down the whole EU? Do you think he has the right to tell the other 27 countries what they ought to do? Is his leadership of UKIP about us leaving the EU or about destroying the EU altogether? If it is, he's misleading people in this country as to his aims.

If you don't want to get your stuff 'twisted', write sentences that mean what you say. Don't call me twisted when it's your own fault for lacking clarity.

[Scuffers]

Mr Snap said:

Don't call me twisted when it's your own fault for lacking clarity.

I would suggest it's more you lack of sanity that's the issue?

[NoNeed]

Mr Snap said:

No.

I was drawing attention to the fact that, disregarding the misspelling, what you said wasn't what you meant. You said that Nigel wanted all MEP's to have no salary. You didn't say UK MEP's, you said the whole lot.

This shows you knew what was meant and chose to twist it.


Ergo you're twisted.

[steveT350C]

The Swiss model of direct democracy, which I previously posted many pages back...

http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch

[don4l]

Mr Snap said:

A small country like Switzerland is better able to manage referenda. The system in Switzerland has taken nearly two hundred years to develop to it's current stage, it's part of their culture. Moving the UK to such a system in two years would be as mad as one of Lenin's Five Year Plans. Political and social changes require generations to accomplish, otherwise the rules of unexpected consequences apply. I'm not in favour of rapid political change in any direction. It would take no account of the traditional british way, consequently you're talking revolution in the proper sense of the word. People get hurt in revolutions.

Besides, it'd be nigh impossible to run an economy the size of ours when rules are being changed every five minutes. In addition to this, such a swift change would only bring out the nutters - such as the hanging brigade. Much time will be wasted on trivialities and in all likelihood the Murdoch press would end up driving policy. Is that what you want?

I don't care what Dr North has written, he's not a constitutional lawyer. Not one constitutional lawyer was involved in that document and, as you point out, it was done on the cheap. If I wanted to change the constitution, I'd use the best minds going, they don't do it on the cheap for a very good reason.

I too have published books. It doesn't make me any better qualified to solve the most difficult constitutional problem the UK would have faced since the dissolution of the monasteries; that was a bloody revolution too.

If I'm an idiot, so are you.

When did Britain get a constitution? Was it last week while I was away?

[Mr Snap]

Mrr T said:

Mr Snap said:

A small country like Switzerland is better able to manage referenda. The system in Switzerland has taken nearly two hundred years to develop to it's current stage, it's part of their culture. Moving the UK to such a system in two years would be as mad as one of Lenin's Five Year Plans. Political and social changes require generations to accomplish, otherwise the rules of unexpected consequences apply. I'm not in favour of rapid political change in any direction. It would take no account of the traditional british way, consequently you're talking revolution in the proper sense of the word. People get hurt in revolutions.

While the document does include ways of improving British democracy such as local referendums. These do not effect the exit plan so the 2 year time frame does not matter. You do realise California also has regular referendum.

Mr Snap said:

Besides, it'd be nigh impossible to run an economy the size of ours when rules are being changed every five minutes. In addition to this, such a swift change would only bring out the nutters - such as the hanging brigade. Much time will be wasted on trivialities and in all likelihood the Murdoch press would end up driving policy. Is that what you want?

There is no suggest the referendum will be on every trading standard but on local council budgets. You do know councils already need to have a referendum on increasing council tax by more than 2%.

Mr Snap said:

I don't care what Dr North has written, he's not a constitutional lawyer. Not one constitutional lawyer was involved in that document and, as you point out, it was done on the cheap. If I wanted to change the constitution, I'd use the best minds going, they don't do it on the cheap for a very good reason.

You do realise the exit plan has nothing to do with constitutional law.

Mr Snap said:

I too have published books. It doesn't make me any better qualified to solve the most difficult constitutional problem the UK would have faced since the dissolution of the monasteries; that was a bloody revolution too.
If I'm an idiot, so are you.

Please stop nesting replies, it turns a discussion into a parsing nightmare. (I assume you don't wish to stifle argument).

If the referenda stuff has nothing to do with Brexit. Why include it in the document? It merely clouds the issue (or is an attempt to squeeze something through the back door?).

The UK isn't California. We have a stable form of democracy based on first past the post. That's pretty much what we voted for at the last referendum in 2010. UKIP liked the idea of PR, because it would have given them bums on seats. As far as I can see, North's suggestion would appear to be an attempt to undermine the will of the people expressed only recently. If that's intentional, it's a fundamentally undemocratic machination; if it's merely an unforeseen consequence, it's politically ignorant.

Therefore, in the context of the UK, the wish to hold regular referenda could be seen merely as an attempt to undermine the status quo and nothing to do with extending democracy.

Yes, I know about local council referenda. Like I admitted, in CH it works for small areas over simple issues. It's not a way to run a country of 60+ million, especially regarding big issues and to be held on a regular basis: Look at what's happening in Scotland now. Combined with first past the post, referenda would be lethal to our current form of democracy. Again, you're talking the potential for bloody revolution and dressing it up as no biggie.

Constitutional change requires constitutional lawyers. A document discussing such radical constitutional change has everything to do with constitutional law. Brexit represents a constitutional change - from the current EU treaty to a new constitution for the UK.

If we don't require any constitutional change to leave the EU, why are we being told repeatedly that our constitution is being undermined by membership of the EU? If the constitution would remain totally unaffected, what is Farage on about in the first place?

You would appear to have shot Nigel's fox.

[Mr Snap]

NoNeed said:

This shows you knew what was meant and chose to twist it.


Ergo you're twisted.

Ergo, you must have realised it was a piss-take in the first place.

[Mr Snap]

don4l said:

Mr Snap said:

A small country like Switzerland is better able to manage referenda. The system in Switzerland has taken nearly two hundred years to develop to it's current stage, it's part of their culture. Moving the UK to such a system in two years would be as mad as one of Lenin's Five Year Plans. Political and social changes require generations to accomplish, otherwise the rules of unexpected consequences apply. I'm not in favour of rapid political change in any direction. It would take no account of the traditional british way, consequently you're talking revolution in the proper sense of the word. People get hurt in revolutions.

Besides, it'd be nigh impossible to run an economy the size of ours when rules are being changed every five minutes. In addition to this, such a swift change would only bring out the nutters - such as the hanging brigade. Much time will be wasted on trivialities and in all likelihood the Murdoch press would end up driving policy. Is that what you want?

I don't care what Dr North has written, he's not a constitutional lawyer. Not one constitutional lawyer was involved in that document and, as you point out, it was done on the cheap. If I wanted to change the constitution, I'd use the best minds going, they don't do it on the cheap for a very good reason.

I too have published books. It doesn't make me any better qualified to solve the most difficult constitutional problem the UK would have faced since the dissolution of the monasteries; that was a bloody revolution too.

If I'm an idiot, so are you.

When did Britain get a constitution? Was it last week while I was away?

Well done, you're the only person who's laid a proper glove for ages.

The constitution is usually described as unwritten but based on precedent, IIRC. How would you describe the change from the current status quo to whatever it's supposed to be replaced by? Why do we call them constitutional lawyers?

[AW111]

Mr Snap said:

Why do we call them constitutional lawyers?

Because calling them bewigged cross-dressers is probably defamatory.

(yes, I know that's barristers)

[Mr Snap]

AW111 said:

Mr Snap said:

Why do we call them constitutional lawyers?

Because calling them bewigged cross-dressers is probably defamatory.

(yes, I know that's barristers)

Sounds like Breadvan alright

[Mojocvh]

Mr Snap said:

AW111 said:

Mr Snap said:

Why do we call them constitutional lawyers?

Because calling them bewigged cross-dressers is probably defamatory.

(yes, I know that's barristers)

Sounds like Breadvan alright

Now THAT is defamatory.

[don4l]

Mr Snap said:

don4l said:

Mr Snap said:

A small country like Switzerland is better able to manage referenda. The system in Switzerland has taken nearly two hundred years to develop to it's current stage, it's part of their culture. Moving the UK to such a system in two years would be as mad as one of Lenin's Five Year Plans. Political and social changes require generations to accomplish, otherwise the rules of unexpected consequences apply. I'm not in favour of rapid political change in any direction. It would take no account of the traditional british way, consequently you're talking revolution in the proper sense of the word. People get hurt in revolutions.

Besides, it'd be nigh impossible to run an economy the size of ours when rules are being changed every five minutes. In addition to this, such a swift change would only bring out the nutters - such as the hanging brigade. Much time will be wasted on trivialities and in all likelihood the Murdoch press would end up driving policy. Is that what you want?

I don't care what Dr North has written, he's not a constitutional lawyer. Not one constitutional lawyer was involved in that document and, as you point out, it was done on the cheap. If I wanted to change the constitution, I'd use the best minds going, they don't do it on the cheap for a very good reason.

I too have published books. It doesn't make me any better qualified to solve the most difficult constitutional problem the UK would have faced since the dissolution of the monasteries; that was a bloody revolution too.

If I'm an idiot, so are you.

When did Britain get a constitution? Was it last week while I was away?


Th

Well done, you're the only person who's laid a proper glove for ages.

The constitution is usually described as unwritten but based on precedent, IIRC. How would you describe the change from the current status quo to whatever it's supposed to be replaced by? Why do we call them constitutional lawyers?

I haven't "laid a proper glove"... yet.

I've pointed out that you are spouting total ste.

There is no such thing as a "British Constitution". You know this, and I know this.

[Mr Snap]

don4l said:

Mr Snap said:

don4l said:

Mr Snap said:

A small country like Switzerland is better able to manage referenda. The system in Switzerland has taken nearly two hundred years to develop to it's current stage, it's part of their culture. Moving the UK to such a system in two years would be as mad as one of Lenin's Five Year Plans. Political and social changes require generations to accomplish, otherwise the rules of unexpected consequences apply. I'm not in favour of rapid political change in any direction. It would take no account of the traditional british way, consequently you're talking revolution in the proper sense of the word. People get hurt in revolutions.

Besides, it'd be nigh impossible to run an economy the size of ours when rules are being changed every five minutes. In addition to this, such a swift change would only bring out the nutters - such as the hanging brigade. Much time will be wasted on trivialities and in all likelihood the Murdoch press would end up driving policy. Is that what you want?

I don't care what Dr North has written, he's not a constitutional lawyer. Not one constitutional lawyer was involved in that document and, as you point out, it was done on the cheap. If I wanted to change the constitution, I'd use the best minds going, they don't do it on the cheap for a very good reason.

I too have published books. It doesn't make me any better qualified to solve the most difficult constitutional problem the UK would have faced since the dissolution of the monasteries; that was a bloody revolution too.

If I'm an idiot, so are you.

When did Britain get a constitution? Was it last week while I was away?


Th

Well done, you're the only person who's laid a proper glove for ages.

The constitution is usually described as unwritten but based on precedent, IIRC. How would you describe the change from the current status quo to whatever it's supposed to be replaced by? Why do we call them constitutional lawyers?

I haven't "laid a proper glove"... yet.

I've pointed out that you are spouting total ste.

There is no such thing as a "British Constitution". You know this, and I know this.

Fill yer boots.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/whatis/uk-c...


And it was you who used the term "British Constitution", sunshine. If I used the term by mistake, I'm happy to admit the error if you can point out where I said it. It still wouldn't detract from the point I'm making; the UK has a constitution and UKIP doesn't seem to know whether it would need changing or not. They say we've given up UK Sovereignty, if that isn't a constitutional change, I don't know what is.

[steveT350C]

There is no legally binding, written British Constitution. Fact.

An essay by UCL, or wiki - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the... does not create said Constitution

both essays agree this...

Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[3] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether this principle remains valid,[4] particularly in light of the UK's membership in the European Union.[5]

Any hint of a UK Constitution is being removed by the EU, so best vote UKIP to a) regain our parliamentary sovereignty, and b) create a Written UK Constitution.

[Mr Snap]

steveT350C said:

There is no legally binding, written British Constitution. Fact.

An essay by UCL, or wiki - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the... does not create said Constitution

both essays agree this...

Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[3] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether this principle remains valid,[4] particularly in light of the UK's membership in the European Union.[5]

Any hint of a UK Constitution is being removed by the EU, so best vote UKIP to a) regain our parliamentary sovereignty, and b) create a Written UK Constitution.

Yes there is a written constitution but it isn't "codified", laid out all in one place, like the American Constitution. This essentially means the "UK Constitution" is embodied in the laws laid down by our sovereign parliament (meaning it can be very dynamic). But constitutional law is definitely not unwritten and that's what makes playing around with it fraught with problems requiring top rate constitutional lawyers. Like most complex mechanisms, if you play about with the widget in the bottom left hand corner, something unexpected happens at the top right. However, constitutional lawyers haven't been involved North's Brexit plan at all. See the potential difficulties?

Farage's argument is that UK sovereignty has been superseded by the EU (i.e. the EU constitution as laid out in the Lisbon Treaty). To withdraw from this Treaty will certainly require changes in UK constitutional law via acts of parliament, there isn't a 'return to default settings' button. This requires constitutional lawyers. If your argument is that there's no constitution (and it therefore doesn't need changing) then you're arguing against Nigel Farage.

[steveT350C]

The article you linked to said it is unwritten.

[Mr Snap]

steveT350C said:

The article you linked to said it is unwritten.

No. It says it's "unwritten". See those little quotation marks? They mean it's not "written" on one piece of paper like the American Constitution. But it is written in thousands of bits and pieces dating back to Magna Carta and beyond. How do you think the country gets run?

Do you think it's like a fairytale and King Nigel will ascend to the throne by divine right and be allowed to make stuff up as he goes along? The last bloke who tried that on suddenly found that his head and body were in different places. The people of the United Kingdom take very unkindly to their rulers acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Now, unless you also want me to explain why Magna Carta didn't die in vain, give yourself a rest.