CXC3000 Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 more like 80% being run by 20% which is a more usual result Sounds very much like a totalitarian society we're (subtly) living under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Sounds very much like a totalitarian society we're (subtly) living under. well it's actually worse than 80% being told what to do by 20% very roughly we have an election where we vote for a representative for our constituency, this person usually belongs to a party the party with most elected representatives forms the government of the day however the party makes very sure that certain people are elected by parachuting them into safe seats where necessary this handful of people form the cabinet who meet behind closed doors and make the big decisions without reference to the rest of parliament, their party and very definitely without reference to us, these decisions are then enforced by the party whips and parliament does what it's told providing the cabinet have made no decision on a matter then your elected representative is free to vote how they wish and may even listen to your point of view on certain issues but for the big issues, a small handful of people tell the entire country what to do and there's very little you can do to influence their decisions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted August 5, 2011 Author Share Posted August 5, 2011 Capital Punishment? Won't happen, current "human rights" laws won't let it. This is absolutely correct. There's two words that will make any debate in Parliament pointless. Lisbon Treaty. Specifically the right to life. Right to life 1. Everyone has the right to life. 2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Lisbon Treaty. Though we could withdraw from it (and the EU) if we (as a people) so desired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I was just about to ask the same question. Since when were Policemen/women ranked higher than anyone else..? Assaulting a police officer is a double crime; firstly, you've assaulted someone, and secondly you're interfering with the judicial system. On the first count, I wouldn't count his life any more important than yours or mine, but if you or I were to get killed, the second count would not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Though we could withdraw from it (and the EU) if we (as a people) so desired. The terms of the treaties we have signed as part of the EU make it permanently illegal for us to withdraw from those treaties. In theory, if any government passed a vote saying "we are no longer a member of the EU" the courts would have to strike it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 More accurately, if we voted in people who agreed Such as UKIP, for instance. In fact a better option would have been to vote for the Referendum Party back in the 90s, whose sole purpose was to call a referendum on EU membership and then disband and call a second general election to actually run the country. I think they got about 0.9% of the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 kick em to death, throw them in a vat of boiling oil, lob em on a fire. ? Makes no difference to me, where do i sign up to volunteer my services. ? Pfff just goes to show how like minded you are to the criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 There is a theoretical getaround though - due to the way our laws are passed, our membership is dependent on a single act of parliament (very arguable i know) but if the theory were to be correct rescinding that act would mean we were no longer members. Rescinding is the important part, rather than passing a new law, which would indeed have to be struck down. It's also illegal for Parliament to rescind that act, for the same reason. Now historically, Parliament outranks the courts - it outranks everything - but in thisc instance, Parliament has passed laws specifically giving up the right to outrank the courts. If they passed a new law taking it back, that new law would be illegal, and one almighty ruckus of a constitutional crisis would ensue. (Can a Prime Minister be arrested for contempt of court?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted August 5, 2011 Author Share Posted August 5, 2011 It's also illegal for Parliament to rescind that act, for the same reason. Now historically, Parliament outranks the courts - it outranks everything - but in thisc instance, Parliament has passed laws specifically giving up the right to outrank the courts. If they passed a new law taking it back, that new law would be illegal, and one almighty ruckus of a constitutional crisis would ensue. (Can a Prime Minister be arrested for contempt of court?) There's no way that the courts could impose that law. If Parliament voted to withdraw from Europe or the Lisbon Treaty and there was popular support for it then it would happen. There would probably be the constitutional crisis you mention, but there is no way the judiciary would win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.