What do you understand by the concept of Democracy?
Discussion
Kermit power said:
Derek Smith said:
We have a monarch but we are not a monarchy as Madge is not the supreme ruler.
That's not correct, Derek.We do live in a monarchy, and the Queen is our Head of State.
We just happen to live in a Constitutional Monarchy (somewhat ironically, given we're famous for our lack of a written Constitution) as opposed to an Absolute Monarchy, which is what you have in mind.
Kermit is correct and the Queen is, technically, the supreme ruler.
She has the power to dissolve parliament any time and overrule any decision made by either the Houses of Parliament or Lords. I think I'm right in saying the only institution she has no power over is the General Synod as this would put her above God in the power stakes which might be a bit of a push.
In very simplistic terms, we the public vote for those to lead us but only have every five years to change anything if it all goes to pot. The Queen oversees this period and is ready to step in if things do indeed go to pot. On this she has advisors (principally, but not exclusively the Privvy Council). In effect, she's looking out for us at the top table regardless of who's sitting there. The ultimate public watchdog.
Of course, enacting this power is rare (I believe the only time she's intervened on matters of politics was surrounding the Poll Tax kerfuffle in the the 80s) but the fact that she has the power is enough to keep things - largely - on an evil keel, theoretically.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Randy Winkman said:
Moonhawk said:
Randy Winkman said:
It's odd that freedom of movement is the one freedom lots of right wingers don't like much.
I don't think its the "freedom of movement part" most have an issue with - it's the "within legal boundaries" part.Of course the UK with one of largest land masses of any country in the world, can carry on accepting immigrants from all over the world in truly vast and untold numbers, and it wont ever have the slightest effect on the indigenous population whatsoever. What's not to like?.
Kermit power said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
ATG said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
What is the matter, does simple truth upset you when it is presented?
No, funnily enough that is not the matter. Tediously banging on about the EU ad nauseam in a thread that is about a much bigger subject is the problem.I was trying to understand the flexy, bendy, selective version of `democracy' that some here seem to believe is democracy, using the same jumping off point as the OP (Brexit), as a way of learning more about what people understand is the true meaning of the term democracy.
It seems that their flexy, bendy, selective version of democracy is not something they want to enlighten on, or discuss with others., and so they shie away from giving an answer.
In the interests of finding out exactly what they mean by the term democracy, I asked a specific question as to whether the way the UK was taken into the EU was in fact democratic, and whether or not the way the UK is being taken out of the EU is also democratic, and if not, why not? No one has deigned to give a straight answer to that question, so I don't know what they mean when they refer to the term democracy. I believed trying to find out what people understood to be the concept of the Democracy was in fact the point of the thread.
1. Were we democratically taken into the EU?
Yes. We were taken into the EU by our democratically elected parliament, whom we elect to conduct matters of State on our behalf.
2. Are we being taken out of the EU democratically?
Yes. We are being taken out of the EU as the result of a direct referendum (another form of democracy to the ones we most frequently use), and have now handed back day to day responsibility for the process of departure to our duly elected parliament again.
Now that you've had an answer, please can we get back to theoretical discussion?
This is the selective, bendy democracy I was referring to, which does not seem like democracy at all. Surely in 2016 the government should have simply taken the UK straight out of the EU, in the same way it took the UK into it, without asking the people, and without all the legal challenges, which occurred subsequent to the 2016 result. Please explain selective democracy since that is the type of democracy I cannot understand.
StevieBee said:
To expand a little further on that (and apologies in advance for the over simplistict description)....
Kermit is correct and the Queen is, technically, the supreme ruler.
She has the power to dissolve parliament any time and overrule any decision made by either the Houses of Parliament or Lords. I think I'm right in saying the only institution she has no power over is the General Synod as this would put her above God in the power stakes which might be a bit of a push.
In very simplistic terms, we the public vote for those to lead us but only have every five years to change anything if it all goes to pot. The Queen oversees this period and is ready to step in if things do indeed go to pot. On this she has advisors (principally, but not exclusively the Privvy Council). In effect, she's looking out for us at the top table regardless of who's sitting there. The ultimate public watchdog.
Of course, enacting this power is rare (I believe the only time she's intervened on matters of politics was surrounding the Poll Tax kerfuffle in the the 80s) but the fact that she has the power is enough to keep things - largely - on an evil keel, theoretically.
The Queen, gods bless her, would get into constitutional problems if she exercised her theoretical powers to dissolve parliament without its consent. As for overruling a decision, I don't think that's on. That way lies a constitutional crisis. Kermit is correct and the Queen is, technically, the supreme ruler.
She has the power to dissolve parliament any time and overrule any decision made by either the Houses of Parliament or Lords. I think I'm right in saying the only institution she has no power over is the General Synod as this would put her above God in the power stakes which might be a bit of a push.
In very simplistic terms, we the public vote for those to lead us but only have every five years to change anything if it all goes to pot. The Queen oversees this period and is ready to step in if things do indeed go to pot. On this she has advisors (principally, but not exclusively the Privvy Council). In effect, she's looking out for us at the top table regardless of who's sitting there. The ultimate public watchdog.
Of course, enacting this power is rare (I believe the only time she's intervened on matters of politics was surrounding the Poll Tax kerfuffle in the the 80s) but the fact that she has the power is enough to keep things - largely - on an evil keel, theoretically.
I'm not a royalist but I don't want a president, so from my point of view we have, in Madge, the perfect HoS. She influences but does not rule. A real monarch should have powers that they can use regardless.
It's handy to have a HoS without power to whom the armed forces look to, but in essence it is a myth. She hasn't the power of a democratic president, one in charge of the executive. She has sod all power. It's a nice feeling to think she's there to ensure stability, but she's a figurehead and hardly anything more.
The police, in theory, derives its authority from the monarch. In practice, it is state run.
If Chas does become HoS quite soon and lives as long as his old man, I reckon we'll all find out just how much of a constitutional monarchy we have. He seems to be inclined to do things which the government might not like. Madge uses influence, and to an extent greater than we know, I reckon. Chas: he'll direct and that won't go down well.
The King threw a paddy in the early 20th century and went against the government and, to an extent, parliament. Parliament, which had a majority for wanting equal voting rights for women, was blocked by HM. He was put in his place. This is underplayed in many histories but, I reckon, was the seminal moment for the crown. The next Reform Act went through and from that time the HoS ceased to have real power. The Hol was emasculated as well but that's got more resilience.
It could change, and soon, and who's to say which way it will go. However, I think it unlikely that the crown will gain any real power.
The UK was not a democracy until, some suggest, 1918, although others, including me, would suggest 1928, so the role of the monarch must be taken from one of those two dates.
Derek Smith said:
Interesting stuff
Bear in mind also that the armed forces swear an oath of allegiance to the reigning monarch and not the government of the day.If it came to a constitutional crisis, however unlikely this may be, You could expect heavily armed troops marching into the HoP rather than the palace. As for the police, I doubt they would go against their constables oath as I believe this is also sworn to the monarch, apart from the obvious result if they opposed the armed forces..
TTwiggy said:
As (I thought) I made clear above, I really couldn't care less one way or the other about the EU. I neither love nor loathe it. I voted remain out of pragmatism. I thought the whole thing to be a massive waste of time, money and effort when it should be the government's job to decide things like this. I voted because I have never missed a vote since turning 18 and I wasn't about to start now (then). For what it's worth I thought it would be close, but 'remain'. I am not devastated by the result but I consider it to be the 'wrong' decision.
And now, please no more bloody Brexit.
Fair enough - so why the complaint about not being consulted on the rules?And now, please no more bloody Brexit.
A straight up 1 person 1 vote is probably the fairest system of voting there is - arguably fairer than the FPTP system, which can lead to wildly different results for similar popular vote shares, especially when constituencies vary in population as much as they do at the moment.
If asked - what rules would you like to see in referendums (not necessarily brexit ones).
Moonhawk said:
Fair enough - so why the complaint about not being consulted on the rules?
If asked - what rules would you like to see in referendums (not necessarily brexit ones).
To the first point - this was rather more in response to a rather supercilious poster who suggested that I had 'agreed to the rules'. My point was that I really didn't have much choice.If asked - what rules would you like to see in referendums (not necessarily brexit ones).
To the second, I'd say at minimum a 60-40 majority should be a requirement to carry a major constitutional or practical change in circumstances. I'd also ban campaigning by either interested group bar the production of a 'fact pamphlet' that would be independently verified.
TTwiggy said:
Tom Logan said:
No you weren't.
No-one in the UK is obliged to vote in anything.
You really do post some crap sometimes.
What's your problem with me Tom? I'm having a discussion here. I'm entitled to do that. Please stop following me around threads that you've made no contribution towards. This is a polite request.No-one in the UK is obliged to vote in anything.
You really do post some crap sometimes.
A polite request? You mean like this one from the Calais thread yesterday?
TTwiggy said:
Why don't you f
k off. And when you've got there, fk off a bit more.
Aren't you supposed to be some sort of journalist? If so, it would tend to indicate a modicum of intellect although in your case I'm not too sure...k off. And when you've got there, fk off a bit more.You've been called out by several posters recently for posting bs and misinformation (no I'm not going to trawl back through your posting history, it's there for all to see should they so wish) so it's fair to assume that said bs and misinfo is purely to serve your own agenda here and I'll leave it for others to decide what that agenda is, but to me it's plain enough given our 'history'.
This is my final word to you on this (or any other) subject.
Sorry to go O/T chaps.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Good. The first near answer I have had on the subject of democracy, but you do not explain why it was `democratic' for the UK government to take the UK into the EU without asking the people of the UK if this was what they wanted, but then why some seem to think the first democratic vote the people of the UK have ever been given on the matter in 2016 was wrong, and they should be given yet another referendum vote on the matter (when they were not even given a vote to go into the EU in the first place)
This is the selective, bendy democracy I was referring to, which does not seem like democracy at all. Surely in 2016 the government should have simply taken the UK straight out of the EU, in the same way it took the UK into it, without asking the people, and without all the legal challenges, which occurred subsequent to the 2016 result. Please explain selective democracy since that is the type of democracy I cannot understand.
At what point does it become undemocratic for our parliament to pass a law on something we've not been consulted on? What makes joining the EU different to any other decision they take? This is the selective, bendy democracy I was referring to, which does not seem like democracy at all. Surely in 2016 the government should have simply taken the UK straight out of the EU, in the same way it took the UK into it, without asking the people, and without all the legal challenges, which occurred subsequent to the 2016 result. Please explain selective democracy since that is the type of democracy I cannot understand.
Personally, I'd prefer a move toward the Swiss system of regular refeferenda on important matters. Yes, it'd take some time for the public to get used to having more of a direct influence, but would be worth it.
Tom Logan said:
so it's fair to assume that said bs and misinfo is purely to serve your own agenda here and I'll leave it for others to decide what that agenda is, but to me it's plain enough given our 'history'.
No. You don't get to do that. If you're going to publicly claim I've got an agenda, I want to hear what it is.I've not been 'called out for spreading bs' anywhere. One or two pedantic posters decided to play semantics with me, that's all. What 'history' do we have Tom? Would it be my 'history' with a poster called 'drivetrain' who definitely isn't you? Or would it be when you thought having a laugh about a dead friend of mine was perfectly ok, and when I called you a four-letter expletive for doing so you ran off to the mods and got me banned? Would that be it Mr 'I just want frank open discussions'?
TTwiggy said:
To the first point - this was rather more in response to a rather supercilious poster who suggested that I had 'agreed to the rules'. My point was that I really didn't have much choice.
To the second, I'd say at minimum a 60-40 majority should be a requirement to carry a major constitutional or practical change in circumstances. I'd also ban campaigning by either interested group bar the production of a 'fact pamphlet' that would be independently verified.
51/49 is democracy whether you like it or not.To the second, I'd say at minimum a 60-40 majority should be a requirement to carry a major constitutional or practical change in circumstances. I'd also ban campaigning by either interested group bar the production of a 'fact pamphlet' that would be independently verified.
Plucking numbers out the air is not.
Nothingtoseehere said:
TTwiggy said:
To the first point - this was rather more in response to a rather supercilious poster who suggested that I had 'agreed to the rules'. My point was that I really didn't have much choice.
To the second, I'd say at minimum a 60-40 majority should be a requirement to carry a major constitutional or practical change in circumstances. I'd also ban campaigning by either interested group bar the production of a 'fact pamphlet' that would be independently verified.
51/49 is democracy whether you like it or not.To the second, I'd say at minimum a 60-40 majority should be a requirement to carry a major constitutional or practical change in circumstances. I'd also ban campaigning by either interested group bar the production of a 'fact pamphlet' that would be independently verified.
Plucking numbers out the air is not.
Nothingtoseehere said:
TTwiggy said:
To the first point - this was rather more in response to a rather supercilious poster who suggested that I had 'agreed to the rules'. My point was that I really didn't have much choice.
To the second, I'd say at minimum a 60-40 majority should be a requirement to carry a major constitutional or practical change in circumstances. I'd also ban campaigning by either interested group bar the production of a 'fact pamphlet' that would be independently verified.
51/49 is democracy whether you like it or not.To the second, I'd say at minimum a 60-40 majority should be a requirement to carry a major constitutional or practical change in circumstances. I'd also ban campaigning by either interested group bar the production of a 'fact pamphlet' that would be independently verified.
Plucking numbers out the air is not.
Nothingtoseehere said:
Disastrous said:
You mean majority rather than democracy here, surely?
Brain swizzle. And don't call me Shirley.Whilst 51% and 60% are both majorities (and thus both inherently democratic I suppose), the latter seems more prudent to me for the big decisions. Certainly a 60% majority either way would do away with the lingering sense of unfairness that follows a close result with the knock-on benefit that less time is spent on recriminations and arguing over whether the result was 'fair' or not.
FWIW, I'd apply that to any major decision that affects the direction of our country. I'd also feel far more inclined to 'accept it' if I felt it truly represented a majority. 51% is just too close - too many non-voters or people who 'thought it would never happen' and so on. A 60% majority would end that IMO.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff