Jump to content

British Politics


Gracii Guns

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Which is the better one?  In your opinion I mean. 

A Constitution similar to the U.S. The big difference would be a Monarch as Head of State , a PM instead of a President as Head Of State and Comander In Chief. House Of Lords instead of elected Senators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You weren't, you were talking about the kind of rhetoric used by remainers. But nice try. 

In reply to ''language'' used by Boris Johnson to highlight hypocrisy. Pay attention.

2 hours ago, soon said:

In the 80's Canada finally got our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Has Britain ever developed a similar 'modern' document on rights and freedoms to give an updated lens as to how law is interpreted?

The Bill of Rights, 1689. 

It is actually part of your (Canada's) statue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Padme said:

A Constitution similar to the U.S. The big difference would be a Monarch as Head of State , a PM instead of a President as Head Of State and Comander In Chief. House Of Lords instead of elected Senators.

I should point out that you can possess the Westminster/Parliamentarian System whilst being a republic, e.g., Bangladesh, India, Ireland, Israel, Malta, Nepal, Pakistan, et al. 

The main differences between a United States style Presidential Constitution and the Westminster System is firstly the Westminster System forms its executive (Prime Minster and Cabinet) from the legislature (Commons). In the American system there is greater division between the powers, with the executive (President) separate from the legislature (Congress). Secondly, there is a greater directness pertaining to the executive and elections. In the Westminster System you tend to vote for your constituent Member of Parliament and the Prime Minister is merely the MP most able of forming a majority in the subsequent Commons (in reality you do rather indirectly vote for a Prime Minster but there is a lowering of emphasis). 

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is my understanding, that having written rules (civic law) or jurisprudence (common law) as main juridical sources, does not really make much of a difference if your goal is to avoid legal ambiguity.

you can have a written rule, set in stone, and it still can be interpreted.

"tall trees should be planted at 2 meters from the boundaries between two properties, hagues can be planted at 50 centimeters distance".

so what do you do with this:

leilinde.jpg

is it a tall tree? or a hague?

so you end up with ambiguity anyway, and the judge needs to make the decision.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Bill of Rights, 1689. 

It is actually part of your (Canada's) statue.

Thanks. But then to me it sounds like the answer is "no, there is no modern document on rights and freedoms." Because we in Canada required a modern document (1983?) to ensure our rights and freedoms were read into the Bill of Rights?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, soon said:

Thanks. But then to me it sounds like the answer is "no, there is no modern document on rights and freedoms." Because we in Canada required a modern document (1983?) to ensure our rights and freedoms were read into the Bill of Rights?

 

1689 is technically regarded as ''modern'' in historiography, and the Bill of Rights is still on the statue book, but I see your point. The closest we have to what you describe is the Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporated into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights (1953).

Incidentally the European Convention on Human Rights itself was inspired by England's 1689 Bill of Rights (as was the United States Bill of Rights 1789 and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 1948).

Edited by DieselDaisy
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I should point out that you can possess the Westminster/Parliamentarian System whilst being a republic, e.g., Bangladesh, India, Ireland, Israel, Malta, Nepal, Pakistan, et al. 

The main differences between a United States style Presidential Constitution and the Westminster System is firstly the Westminster System forms its executive (Prime Minster and Cabinet) from the legislature (Commons). In the American system there is greater division between the powers, with the executive (President) separate from the legislature (Congress). Secondly, there is a greater directness pertaining to the executive and elections. In the Westminster System you tend to vote for your constituent Member of Parliament and the Prime Minister is merely the MP most able of forming a majority in the subsequent Commons (in reality you do rather indirectly vote for a Prime Minster but there is a lowering of emphasis). 

In the cases of Ireland, Italy or Germany there is also a President and he is the Head Of State. However in those cases it is not very clear (at least to me) what the role of the President is. That's why I mentioned the U.S. and not other places.

 In the U.S. they have the Electoral College to elect the President. So the popular vote alone doesn't matter too much without winning Electoral College votes. So it is  some degree indirectly as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Padme said:

In the cases of Ireland, Italy or Germany there is also a President and he is the Head Of State. However in those cases it is not very clear (at least to me) what the role of the President is. That's why I mentioned the U.S. and not other places.

 In the U.S. they have the Electoral College to elect the President. So the popular vote alone doesn't matter too much without winning Electoral College votes. So it is  some degree indirectly as well.

Ceremonial, much like the present day Queen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify,

There are two basic forms of constitutional government, of which one can be split into two sub categories, 

1/ Presidential System, e.g., the United States and South America.

2/ Parliamentarian System

    a/ Westminster System, e.g., United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Commonwealth.

    b/ Western European Parliamentarian System, e.g., Spain, Germany

The ''Presidential System'' can be misleading as one can have a president in both the Westminster System and the Western European Parliamentarian System. Also Prime Ministers can exist in a Presidential System (e.g., Argentina). And although the Presidential System tends to comprise solely of republics, whether a country is a republic or a monarchy is somewhat academic pertaining to the two Parliamentarian Systems (although there are a lot of monarchies in the Westminster Model on account of Elizabeth II).

NB., that France, the French Fifth Republic that is, possesses a hybrid system, a mix between a Presidential and a Western European Parliamentarian Model. 

It is complicated as there is a lot of overlapping.

PS

Most countries with the Westminster System also possess English Common Law. 

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

In reply to ''language'' used by Boris Johnson to highlight hypocrisy. Pay attention.

Nope, you were talking about the general language of remainers. Jeez man, are you senile or drunk? Just read what you wrote:

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The kind of rhetoric which is inflammatory is the type of rhetoric utilised by remainers, rhetoric of class privilege and disdain (and dare I say, with a bit of anti-North and/or anti-rural or anti-small towns thrown in). Leavers have been branded, 'fascists', ''uneducated'', ''ignorant (they didn't know what they voted for)'', ''gammons'', ''Little Englanders'', ''imperial nostalgists'', ''yokels'', etc etc., merely for excising their democratic vote in desiring withdrawal from the European Union,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the people who love throwing insults around.... and let's get this right, they've labelled Boris everything from a 'racist', 'fascist', 'bigot', 'serial adulterer', 'tin-pot dictator'(my personal favourite) and 'lawbreaker' (he's not far off Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot according to these muppets) are now squealing because he himself has used a bit of 'inflammatory' (in their opinion) language? Do these people not realise how absolutely ridiculous they are? They've worked themselves up into such a frenzy of superior, self-rightousness and just can't help making fools of themselves. They need their nappies changing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bucketfoot said:

So the people who love throwing insults around.... and let's get this right, they've labelled Boris everything from a 'racist', 'fascist', 'bigot', 'serial adulterer', 'tin-pot dictator'(my personal favourite) and 'lawbreaker' (he's not far off Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot according to these muppets) are now squealing because he himself has used a bit of 'inflammatory' (in their opinion) language? Do these people not realise how absolutely ridiculous they are? They've worked themselves up into such a frenzy of superior, self-rightousness and just can't help making fools of themselves. They need their nappies changing.

Maybe "they" expect more from their Prime Minister? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Nope, you were talking about the general language of remainers. Jeez man, are you senile or drunk? Just read what you wrote:

 

Clever of you to omit the sentences in bold by the way; I have returned them to their rightful place,

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Jo Cox was brought up first by a remainer, Jess Phillips, in a speech full of contorted hate. Boris was merely replying. 

The kind of rhetoric which is inflammatory is the type of rhetoric utilised by remainers, rhetoric of class privilege and disdain (and dare I say, with a bit of anti-North and/or anti-rural or anti-small towns thrown in). Leavers have been branded, 'fascists', ''uneducated'', ''ignorant (they didn't know what they voted for)'', ''gammons'', ''Little Englanders'', ''imperial nostalgists'', ''yokels'', etc etc., merely for excising their democratic vote in desiring withdrawal from the European Union, a desire held by the Labour Party until c.1988, as well as the SNP at one time.

Boris said,

''surrender bill''.

Remainer meltdown!!!

The above was fourth in a series of posts triggered by yesterday's Commons fiasco. I will re-quote all four in chronological order so there is no ambiguity,

22 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The word ''surrender'' sends the remainer MPs a bit nuts! The Liberals and SNP seem to have a meltdown when faced with the word. One even likened Boris's usage of the term ''surrender bill'' to the murder of Jo Cox (yes, I am confused as you are!). 

PS

I have often thought Brexit is a culture war. Not so much a class war as the difference cuts across class, but a clash of cultures between basically a people who look at a term such as ''surrender bill'' and get offended or a bit crazy, and people who look at it and don't. Just a theory that needs further development.

 

22 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Let's assume ''surrender/surrender bill'' is inflammatory speech. To any sane person it isn't but let's just assume that it is for sake of argument. The analogy is being made between Boris's language and a MP who was shot and stabbed to death - not on the receiving end of some particularly inflammatory language - by a member of the English far-right!

Yes, I'm none the wiser either!!! 

 

PS

''Humbug'' also haha. That is more Boris doing his Jeeves and Wooster impression, yet watch the snowflakes melt at the word!

 

13 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

''Surrender'' being ''nasty'' language vs the faces on these two remainers (she by the way is the accuser),

EFVoec3XkAE3DWd?format=jpg&name=900x900

Hmm.

And last but not least,

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Jo Cox was brought up first by a remainer, Jess Phillips, in a speech full of contorted hate. Boris was merely replying. 

The kind of rhetoric which is inflammatory is the type of rhetoric utilised by remainers, rhetoric of class privilege and disdain (and dare I say, with a bit of anti-North and/or anti-rural or anti-small towns thrown in). Leavers have been branded, 'fascists', ''uneducated'', ''ignorant (they didn't know what they voted for)'', ''gammons'', ''Little Englanders'', ''imperial nostalgists'', ''yokels'', etc etc., merely for excising their democratic vote in desiring withdrawal from the European Union, a desire held by the Labour Party until c.1988, as well as the SNP at one time.

Boris said,

''surrender bill''.

Remainer meltdown!!!

You love these linguistic dramas, don't you? I don't know if it is your Teutonic literalness clashing with my casual and facetious manner of speaking, or if you really are that determined to undermine me that you are willing to omit previous quotes, edit my quotes, chopping out key sentences, and even going to the extent of manufacturing quotes that do not belong to me!

I am going to assume a combination of the two and leave it at that.

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You love these linguistic dramas, don't you? I don't know if it is your Teutonic literalness clashing with my casual and facetious manner of speaking

Not casual and facetious, it is just that you get carried away and say stupid things you later contradict and then I enjoy pointing it out. 

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are a disturbing and obsessive character. You once emailed, what you erroneously thought was, my Alma Mater in order to prove some remark by me about religion and the British curriculum was incorrect. Now people know why I never reveal much of myself on here!!

 

Oh, you reveal quite a lot :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Not casual and facetious, it is just that you get carried away and say stupid things you later contradict and then I enjoy pointing it out. 

Well you'd surely produce better critiques of my musings if you didn't resort to omission, editing and libelous quotation. All I have to do for rebuttal is merely re-quote the original quote(s). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well you'd surely produce better critiques of my musings if you didn't resort to omission, editing and libelous quotation. All I have to do for rebuttal is merely re-quote the original quote(s). 

You cannot escape that in the section I posted you went on a general rambling against remainers and their language. It wasn't about Boris anymore (regardless of how many earlier and later posts you decide to copy to confuse the issue), it was your unfiltered views on what you feel you are being objected to from remainers that came pouring out. I will post it again, because it is brilliant:

"The kind of rhetoric which is inflammatory is the type of rhetoric utilised by remainers, rhetoric of class privilege and disdain (and dare I say, with a bit of anti-North and/or anti-rural or anti-small towns thrown in). Leavers have been branded, 'fascists', ''uneducated'', ''ignorant (they didn't know what they voted for)'', ''gammons'', ''Little Englanders'', ''imperial nostalgists'', ''yokels'', etc etc., merely for excising their democratic vote in desiring withdrawal from the European Union […]."

And in a way it is sad that you feel this way, it shouldn't have to be like this, and it is a reflection of how hard-edged the discourse have become. The polarization in England is similar to what we see in the US. That being said, I do believe that most remainers understand that only some leavers are like what described above, and that a great deal of them are decent people with sound skepticism of the EU and not moved by fear and bitterness and xenophobia.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

You cannot escape that in the section I posted you went on a general rambling against remainers and their language. It wasn't about Boris anymore (regardless of how many earlier and later posts you decide to copy to confuse the issue), it was your unfiltered views on what you feel you are being objected to from remainers that came pouring out. I will post it again, because it is brilliant:

"The kind of rhetoric which is inflammatory is the type of rhetoric utilised by remainers, rhetoric of class privilege and disdain (and dare I say, with a bit of anti-North and/or anti-rural or anti-small towns thrown in). Leavers have been branded, 'fascists', ''uneducated'', ''ignorant (they didn't know what they voted for)'', ''gammons'', ''Little Englanders'', ''imperial nostalgists'', ''yokels'', etc etc., merely for excising their democratic vote in desiring withdrawal from the European Union […]."

Still chopping up my post I see? If you weren't editing that post you'd see that I actually bookend the passage you quoted with the instigating discussion about the Prime Minster and the Commons debate. Again I re-quote the quote, with the passages you are editing-out returned to their rightful place, 

19 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Jo Cox was brought up first by a remainer, Jess Phillips, in a speech full of contorted hate. Boris was merely replying. 

The kind of rhetoric which is inflammatory is the type of rhetoric utilised by remainers, rhetoric of class privilege and disdain (and dare I say, with a bit of anti-North and/or anti-rural or anti-small towns thrown in). Leavers have been branded, 'fascists', ''uneducated'', ''ignorant (they didn't know what they voted for)'', ''gammons'', ''Little Englanders'', ''imperial nostalgists'', ''yokels'', etc etc., merely for excising their democratic vote in desiring withdrawal from the European Union, a desire held by the Labour Party until c.1988, as well as the SNP at one time.

Boris said,

''surrender bill''.

Remainer meltdown!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Still chopping up my post I see? If you weren't editing that post you'd see that I actually bookend the passage you quoted with the instigating discussion about the Prime Minster and the Commons debate. Again I re-quote the quote, with the passages you are editing-out returned to their rightful place, 

 

Doesn't make any difference :lol:

You were still talking about "the kind of rhetoric" "utilised by remainers", and then mentioned all your grievances against how they refer to you and your lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Doesn't make any difference :lol:

You were still talking about "the kind of rhetoric" "utilised by remainers", and then mentioned all your grievances against how they refer to you and your lot.

It makes every bit of difference considering the bit you keep posting succeeded a passage about Boris/Commons, and preceded a passage about Boris/Commons. Conclusion: the paragraph was affiliated to a larger debate concerning Boris/Commons!

Maybe you don't understand how to write? I would've assumed you had to write essays for your science qualifications, but you clearly do not understand the art of writing and the ability of opening up detours with new paragraphs as part of a larger affiliated debate. I am going to assume that is the source of your misunderstanding, a lack of knowledge of epistolary and syntax. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It makes every bit of difference considering the bit you keep posting succeeded a passage about Boris/Commons, and preceded a passage about Boris/Commons. Conclusion: the paragraph was affiliated to a larger debate concerning Boris/Commons!

My conclusion is, and I believe most people reading that post of yours would agree, that you went off on a tangent whining about remainers and how they say bad things about you and other leavers ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

My conclusion is, and I believe most people reading that post of yours would agree, that you went off on a tangent whining about remainers and how they say bad things about you and other leavers ;)

They would if they only read your ''edited highlights'' version of my post haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...