$20.00
$5.00
$15.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
38 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Brexit and the rule of law. Now with added Trump rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Russell
Netherlands
Zutphen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Angry brexiters demand that the government can do what it wants, and parliament and the judiciary can fuck off.

Whadda we want?
Totalitarianism!
Why is reading a little history so hard?

Anybody that voted for brexit may want to take a look at the ugly, terrifying future that is suddenly possible. It's time to walk in any other direction.


BTW America, seeing as you seem to be heading along a similar trajectory...

As much as I loathe Clinton and what she stands for, voting for Trump takes you further down the road of not being able to vote out Trump, or his kind. Ever.

Change has got to come, but this is not the way to do it.
14 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
I keep forgetting, was Bush the one who kept us on the trajectory or was it Obama? Will Hillary change the trajectory or is it Trump?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harmonica
Netherlands
Tilburg
Noord-Brabant
flag msg tools
Keep your lovin' brother happy!
mbmbmbmbmb
collapsing wave wrote:
Angry brexiters demand that the government can do what it wants, and parliament and the judiciary can fuck off.

Whadda we want?
Totalitarianism!

Most people don't realise, that our law system is what we have commonly agreed on. And that all the fuzz that politics is, is nothing less then the healthy decision process doing its work.

What the Brexiteers want is nothing less than having their way. My message to them all is ... Brits, take your cornflakes and your marmite and shove off! Europe doesn't need a millstone. We want to move ahead.

collapsing wave wrote:
Why is reading a little history so hard?

Let me tell you a story of the past, boy. Till the early nineties Yugoslavia had been quiet and peacefull with several cultures living in harmony. Then politicians have found a way to stir up the anger and it ended with 200.000 to 300.000 people dead and millions damaged for life.

Now we in the western world live in similar circumstances. Till the change of the milennium people tend to follow their leaders like sheep and voted likewise. Nowadays - thanks to internet - all kind of idiots with too big egos put the fire near the fuse, simply because intellect is not regarded a quality in the lower levels of society. And later after the disaster has happened they will claim they have seen nothing. You see ... the old system wasn't that bad.

collapsing wave wrote:
Anybody that voted for brexit may want to take a look at the ugly, terrifying future that is suddenly possible. It's time to walk in any other direction.

Brexit is good for Europe. Trust me.

collapsing wave wrote:
BTW America, seeing as you seem to be heading along a similar trajectory...

Rule number one ... Tiny countries should never tell the real big ones what to do. They never like that. Besides Obama have learnt us that Potus is not that powerfull. If your idiot becomes Potus, we have to deal with that.

collapsing wave wrote:
As much as I loathe Clinton and what she stands for, voting for Trump takes you further down the road of not being able to vote out Trump, or his kind. Ever.

Expect the unexpected. I have a high regard of mrs. Clinton. She will be more active on the world stage than her predecessor. I don't see how she can undo his mistakes.

collapsing wave wrote:
Change has got to come, but this is not the way to do it.

No, but what can you do. If you have voted against the Ukraine Trade Treaty may I suggest emigration, so that all the nutters are concentrated in one country.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
anemaat wrote:
collapsing wave wrote:
Angry brexiters demand that the government can do what it wants, and parliament and the judiciary can fuck off.

Whadda we want?
Totalitarianism!

Most people don't realise, that our law system is what we have commonly agreed on. And that all the fuzz that politics is, is nothing less then the healthy decision process doing its work.

What the Brexiteers want is nothing less than having their way. My message to them all is ... Brits, take your cornflakes and your marmite and shove off! Europe doesn't need a millstone. We want to move ahead.


Don't be so judgemental. Only about 36% of British people voted for Brexit. I would guess that of those there are a number who do not have a "my way or else" attitude. A lot of the outrage has been generated by the usual suspects in the newspapers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Bradley
United Kingdom
Haverhill
Suffolk
flag msg tools
The best things in life aren't things.
mbmbmbmbmb
Leave or remain, about 70% of the UK wants the results handled in a mature and respectful way. Moderate leavers are unhappy as they seem to have been sold a UKIP pig in a Conservative poke. Moderate remainers respect the result of the referendum and want an orderly withdrawal not this maoist orgasm we're being threatened with.

Unfortunately we're not getting any of this. We're having a national nervous breakdown instead.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Alleman
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
I keep forgetting, was Bush the one who kept us on the trajectory or was it Obama? Will Hillary change the trajectory or is it Trump?


Obummer was slightly to the left of Bush and Killary will keep us on the same shitty path. Trump will derail us so far that we may never recover. You thought the crash at the end of Bush was bad? Trump getting elected will cause global markets to fail and possibly not recover. So yes Trump might change the trajectory and land us right into the biggest dumpster fire we've ever seen.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve K
United States
flag msg tools
Daddys_Home wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
I keep forgetting, was Bush the one who kept us on the trajectory or was it Obama? Will Hillary change the trajectory or is it Trump?


Obummer was slightly to the left of Bush and Killary will keep us on the same shitty path. Trump will derail us so far that we may never recover. You thought the crash at the end of Bush was bad? Trump getting elected will cause global markets to fail and possibly not recover. So yes Trump might change the trajectory and land us right into the biggest dumpster fire we've ever seen.


Sooo.... you've come a long way from Occupy Wall Street. Now it's Wall Street: grab my pussy!!!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Alleman
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wall street's been grabbing pussy forever, so not really sure what you're saying.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russell
Netherlands
Zutphen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
anemaat.

I think you got the wrong end of the stick. But then again maybe not.
I'm not arguing that going against the rule of law is good thing. It's terrifying and worrying.


I think that the angry, hard brexit camp is shoving the country in the wrong direction and the government (and lord chancellor) is being spineless regarding the way some of the papers have come out and attacked the judiciary.

Brexit is probably good for the EU as a whole, bad for the uk, but at least the eu can get one with more of the useful stuff without the uk dragging it back. Although there will be a short term economic loss i feel.

Clinton is in the pockets of the corporations. This is clear to even a casual observer. Expect more of the same.

The Ukraine treaty should never have gone to a referendum, that is typical fuckwit wilders playing his dirty games.

BUT

The EU were perceived as smuggling into a trade treaty about almonds, a precursor to Ukraine joining the EU. So I'm not that surprised people got scared an voted against it. Not that I agree with them.

By the way I didn't vote as I am british and stuck in that lovely political no-mans-land where I've been outside the uk for more than 15 years so I couldn't vote on Brexit/in and I don't have dutch citizenship so i couldn't vote on the Ukraine treaty.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon M
United Kingdom
Hitchin
Herts
flag msg tools
collapsing wave wrote:
Angry brexiters demand that the government can do what it wants, and parliament and the judiciary can fuck off.

Whadda we want?
Totalitarianism!
Why is reading a little history so hard?

Anybody that voted for brexit may want to take a look at the ugly, terrifying future that is suddenly possible. It's time to walk in any other direction.


BTW America, seeing as you seem to be heading along a similar trajectory...

As much as I loathe Clinton and what she stands for, voting for Trump takes you further down the road of not being able to vote out Trump, or his kind. Ever.

Change has got to come, but this is not the way to do it.


It is hardly totalitarianism. A constitutional argument about how to achieve the same thing is hardly the precursor of goose stepping troops down Whitehall. If people are given a vote in a referendum and then all they hear is how the result is going to be "gotten around" or obfuscated then there is an understandable cynicism in seeing "the establishment" shoving sticks into the spokes.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Jon_1066 wrote:
It is hardly totalitarianism. A constitutional argument about how to achieve the same thing is hardly the precursor of goose stepping troops down Whitehall. If people are given a vote in a referendum and then all they hear is how the result is going to be "gotten around" or obfuscated then there is an understandable cynicism in seeing "the establishment" shoving sticks into the spokes.


Ahh so you blame the media and a few other people for telling lies.

1) There wasn't an overwhelming result one way or the other. If there was (say a super-majority) there wouldn't be so much froth. Also the same thing could have been avoided if the question had been more precise about the kind of exit that the people wanted.

2) The judges are not trying to "get around" or otherwise obfuscate the result. They merely judge on the matter of law.

3) The referendum was advisory. You can read the bill which authorised the referendum. Therefore it seems proper that parliament having been so advised, should debate and vote.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mutton Chops
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
andyl wrote:
Jon_1066 wrote:
It is hardly totalitarianism. A constitutional argument about how to achieve the same thing is hardly the precursor of goose stepping troops down Whitehall. If people are given a vote in a referendum and then all they hear is how the result is going to be "gotten around" or obfuscated then there is an understandable cynicism in seeing "the establishment" shoving sticks into the spokes.


Ahh so you blame the media and a few other people for telling lies.

1) There wasn't an overwhelming result one way or the other. If there was (say a super-majority) there wouldn't be so much froth. Also the same thing could have been avoided if the question had been more precise about the kind of exit that the people wanted.

2) The judges are not trying to "get around" or otherwise obfuscate the result. They merely judge on the matter of law.

3) The referendum was advisory. You can read the bill which authorised the referendum. Therefore it seems proper that parliament having been so advised, should debate and vote.


As has been pointed out before here, the Referendum Bill made it clear that this was "...a pre-legislative or consultative referendum...", that "The UK does not have constitutional provisions that would require the results of a referendum to be implemented", and that the referendum was simply a way of finding out what the country thought on the matter, which might then be taken into consideration by the Government. The fact that the Tories have implied the invocation of Article 50 would not merit a Parliamentary debate and vote on the matter simply shows how spineless and cynical they are.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon M
United Kingdom
Hitchin
Herts
flag msg tools
andyl wrote:
Jon_1066 wrote:
It is hardly totalitarianism. A constitutional argument about how to achieve the same thing is hardly the precursor of goose stepping troops down Whitehall. If people are given a vote in a referendum and then all they hear is how the result is going to be "gotten around" or obfuscated then there is an understandable cynicism in seeing "the establishment" shoving sticks into the spokes.


Ahh so you blame the media and a few other people for telling lies.

1) There wasn't an overwhelming result one way or the other. If there was (say a super-majority) there wouldn't be so much froth. Also the same thing could have been avoided if the question had been more precise about the kind of exit that the people wanted.

2) The judges are not trying to "get around" or otherwise obfuscate the result. They merely judge on the matter of law.

3) The referendum was advisory. You can read the bill which authorised the referendum. Therefore it seems proper that parliament having been so advised, should debate and vote.


I am blaming nobody. Simply pointing out that criticising a judgement is hardly akin to welcoming in Mussolini as the OP seems to imply.

Clearly the referendum was all done in a half arsed way with the assumption that remain would win - hence no actual plan for when the result came back as leave.

Perception of what has happened since the result is that large numbers of the losing side don't want to implement the result. This plays into that narrative.

I personally think Parliament should vote on the matter but not doing so is hardly the path to totalitarianism as the OP implied.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
I know I'm just a dumb American, but isn't Parliament the government in the UK?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
I keep forgetting, was Bush the one who kept us on the trajectory or was it Obama? Will Hillary change the trajectory or is it Trump?


Here's how bad Trump is from my perspective. I yearn for the days when the Republican party nominated guys like Romney, McCain and Bush.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
I know I'm just a dumb American, but isn't Parliament the government in the UK?


No.

Parliament is like the Congress. It is the bicameral house that passes legislation.

The government is essentially formed by the party that won a majority of seats at a general election. They essentially run the country, and decide the budget (finance bill), and set policy on a whole load of issues. Generally these are packaged into chunks which are put in front of the House of Commons who will vote on them (because the Government are the largest party they usually have no problem going through). The House of Lords then revises them and can send bills back to the Commons for more work.

For certain things the Government can use executive powers to pass them - this is usually under powers delegated from by an enactment of primary legislation. It also has prerogative powers on stuff like foreign treaties, honours and some other appointments, and the prerogative of mercy. It has also fairly recently blocked some extraditions to the US.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
I know I'm just a dumb American, but isn't Parliament the government in the UK?


Parliament is the legislature. This is a question about whether the executive (which to be confusing is led by members of the legislature) can withdraw from the EU based entirely on executive powers. The argument for that is that this is a treaty, and treaty powers are vested in the executive (through what's still called Royal Prerogative) and don't need ratification by the legislature. But the counter-argument, which has so far won in court, is that since membership of the EU was in fact put in place by legislation, it requires legislation to overturn it.

Now usually, owing to the strength of the party system, what the executive (which will command a majority in the legislature, or else it wouldn't be the executive) wants it gets. This is however anything but normally.

(And we use "government" for what I've termed above the executive. Note that cabinet members are also members of the legislature, i.e. Parliament. Usually the elected House of Commons, sometimes the now mostly appointed House of Lords.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It goes back to history Charles the 2nd and Cromwell and the subsequent restoration of the monachy.

The Government is the monarchs and is seperate from parliament. Ms May is claimming to exercise the monarchs privilage over treaties etc a bit like the presidents executive order.

However in our complex scattered all round the place equivalent of the constitution ONLY parliament has the authority to take away citizens rights and the rights the Eu gave us were enshrined in to law.

It's a naked power grab.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
growlley wrote:
It goes back to history Charles the 2nd and Cromwell and the subsequent restoration of the monachy.

The Government is the monarchs and is seperate from parliament. Ms May is claimming to exercise the monarchs privilage over treaties etc a bit like the presidents executive order.

However in our complex scattered all round the place equivalent of the constitution ONLY parliament has the authority to take away citizens rights and the rights the Eu gave us were enshrined in to law.

It's a naked power grab.


Except that there are lot of pieces of legislation that are vague and best power in ministers to decree details. That's fine when it's about regulations about details that there's no way to fix in law. Not so good when the details are everything. And there's been a rising tide of that too. And a centralization of cabinet responsibility to the Prome Minister.

Edit: I wasn't disagreeing with you, just saying it goes further.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
andyl wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
I know I'm just a dumb American, but isn't Parliament the government in the UK?


No.

Parliament is like the Congress. It is the bicameral house that passes legislation.

The government is essentially formed by the party that won a majority of seats at a general election (MPs then). They essentially run the country, and decide the budget (finance bill), and set policy on a whole load of issues. Generally these are packaged into chunks which are put in front of the House of Commons who will vote on them (because the Government are the largest party {again MPs} they usually have no problem going through). The House of Lords then revises them and can send bills back to the Commons for more work.

For certain things the Government can use executive powers to pass them - this is usually under powers delegated from by an enactment of primary legislation. It also has prerogative powers on stuff like foreign treaties, honours and some other appointments, and the prerogative of mercy. It has also fairly recently blocked some extraditions to the US.

So, yes, Parliament is the government. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
Okay, to clarify what I meant by the above post:

In the US, which also has a bicameral legislature (both houses elected by the people, though) AND an executive branch separate but inferior in power to the legislature, Congress really is the government. It has the power to tax and spend, to create or eliminate law, to create or eliminate various departments and bureaus to address specific needs as viewed by Congress. One party usually holds a majority in each house, and sometimes the same party has a majority in both houses. But the executive branch carries out the legislated desires of Congress, though most times the laws or legislation passed by Congress are rather broad, and the various departments and bureaus may interpret the details of said legislation.

But in essence, Congress is the government, just as Parliament is the government. I know about Crowell and the whole abolition of the monarchy thing then the restoration under William, but in practice, Parliament runs the show. Where the confusion occurs to me is that you term the majority party (or coalition of parties that form the majority) as the government. I should have known that. Mea culpa
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
"The government is essentially formed by the party that won a majority of seats at a general election"

That should read Traditionaly The government is ... It doesn't have to be and the monarch can ask the loser to form a government,

well at least once as it would likely lead to orf with her head!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
andyl wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:
I know I'm just a dumb American, but isn't Parliament the government in the UK?


No.

Parliament is like the Congress. It is the bicameral house that passes legislation.

The government is essentially formed by the party that won a majority of seats at a general election (MPs then). They essentially run the country, and decide the budget (finance bill), and set policy on a whole load of issues. Generally these are packaged into chunks which are put in front of the House of Commons who will vote on them (because the Government are the largest party {again MPs} they usually have no problem going through). The House of Lords then revises them and can send bills back to the Commons for more work.

For certain things the Government can use executive powers to pass them - this is usually under powers delegated from by an enactment of primary legislation. It also has prerogative powers on stuff like foreign treaties, honours and some other appointments, and the prerogative of mercy. It has also fairly recently blocked some extraditions to the US.

So, yes, Parliament is the government. Thanks for clearing that up.


No, really it's that government is IN parliament. They aren't the same. All members of government are in parliament, but not all members of parliament are in government.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J J
Australia
flag msg tools
remorseless1 wrote:
Okay, to clarify what I meant by the above post:

In the US, which also has a bicameral legislature (both houses elected by the people, though) AND an executive branch separate but inferior in power to the legislature, Congress really is the government. It has the power to tax and spend, to create or eliminate law, to create or eliminate various departments and bureaus to address specific needs as viewed by Congress. One party usually holds a majority in each house, and sometimes the same party has a majority in both houses. But the executive branch carries out the legislated desires of Congress, though most times the laws or legislation passed by Congress are rather broad, and the various departments and bureaus may interpret the details of said legislation.

But in essence, Congress is the government, just as Parliament is the government. I know about Crowell and the whole abolition of the monarchy thing then the restoration under William, but in practice, Parliament runs the show. Where the confusion occurs to me is that you term the majority party (or coalition of parties that form the majority) as the government. I should have known that. Mea culpa


No, still getting it wrong.

The government is a sub-set of parliament. The government is that majority party, or coalition, not parliament as a whole.

You don't have an equivalent in the US.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The cabinet is composed of members of parliament (either the commons or the lords) that hold Ministerial positions in the government and are I believe 'Crown roles' even though the occupants aren't chosen by the monarch.

They don't have to be a member of the current 'ruling party' but are heads of government departments, normally holding the office of "Secretary of State for e.g., Defence. All the Secretaries of State jointly hold the same office, and can exercise the same powers.


Think of it this way the government is composed of certain mps or lords holding offices of state normally chosen from the party that won the most seats in a winner takes all system but not all mps hold these positions so they may either be an mp belonging to the party from which the government is drawn or the 'other side'.

For example I have never voted directly for a prime minister unlike you americans. Here the role is tradionally resevered for the leader of the party or colition that has the largiest majority in parliament.

The ministers determine the principle behind new laws. The house of commons eg mps elected to represent their local area then decides wether to pass or reject the practical implementation of the law the civil service usually comes up with.

The house of lords acts as a final 'scrutiny' on the new bill can ask for changes a certain number of times but can not ultimately refuse to pass a bill.

The queen then gives the bill her royal assent and it is then considered an act of Parliament (both houses + monarch).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.