Would You Vote For A British Republic?

[Dromedary]

34 minutes ago, m williamson said:

In this country parliament is sovereign. Members of Parliament are appointed by a voting system which has failed to elect a single government since 1945 which had managed to achieve even 50% of votes cast.

So over the past 78 years this country has been governed by party's which more people voted against than for at the General Election they ' won '.

Err no, people do not vote against any party, they only vote for a party.

 

34 minutes ago, m williamson said:

In 2005 Tony Blairs Labour Party won a working majority having only had 35.2% of the votes cast in its favour. In 2019 Johnson won with 43.6% of the votes cast.

Yes and why was that, simply because we have a system where the party with the majority wins. 

 

34 minutes ago, m williamson said:

....

Fair enough. if that's what people want, but please stop trying to claim that it's democratic.

You have not thought that through very well have you! 

 

34 minutes ago, m williamson said:

In a true democracy the people are sovereign, every citizen is equal and the state cannot alter an agreed and written constitution without the permission of the people.

Ahh but there is no such thing as a true democracy. What you are stating though only applies to a direct democracy which is a very rare occurrence. Like many democracies around the world ours is a representative democracy. You also seem to be confusing democracy with they way those elected to represent us using elections are held.

 

Fair enough FPTP need changing to some form of proportionality but is still will not alter the fact we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. A representative democracy is necessary simply because of the logistics involved.

[Al Bundy]

53 minutes ago, m williamson said:

In this country parliament is sovereign. Members of Parliament are appointed by a voting system which has failed to elect a single government since 1945 which had managed to achieve even 50% of votes cast.

So over the past 78 years this country has been governed by party's which more people voted against than for at the General Election they ' won '.

In 2005 Tony Blairs Labour Party won a working majority having only had 35.2% of the votes cast in its favour. In 2019 Johnson won with 43.6% of the votes cast.

This unfit for purpose undemocratic nonsense of a FPTP system suits no one except the people elected using it. Which is why when we were offered an alternative system in 2011 they made sure to offer us another flawed AV system. This despite the fact that the most democratic system as yet devised has been used in a part of the UK since 1973.

The contempt for the public displayed by the Establishment in this country is obvious, despite which the gullible lap it up and refuse to see that they're being played.

Which is why I have said on more than one occasion on this thread that it isn't going to change.

 

Fair enough. if that's what people want, but please stop trying to claim that it's democratic.

In a true democracy the people are sovereign, every citizen is equal and the state cannot alter an agreed and written constitution without the permission of the people.

Onanist ✊

Onanist?

 

Is that someone who sits on a pianist?

[m williamson]

Just now, sibon said:

Well, aren’t you just a fine addition to the forum.

 

I do hope that you didn’t pay that charm school.

I'm charming to those who deserve it. Those who decide to act the goat and choose to involve me in their actions get what's deserved.

[Guest sibon]

Just now, m williamson said:

I'm charming to those who deserve it. Those who decide to act the goat and choose to involve me in their actions get what's deserved.

There is no need to be a dick though.

[m williamson]

16 minutes ago, Rockers rule said:

But calling someone a W***ER by using an obscure word is the height of sophistication, pill**k.

 

"Mummy that bad boy said I could have 'the last word' and he hasn't" 😢 😢 😢.

 

 

Who was trying to be sophisticated? I was simply calling a spade an earth removing implement. 

 

If the shoe fits.

Edited January 1, 2023 by m williamson

[m williamson]

4 minutes ago, sibon said:

There is no need to be a dick though.

Have you been following this thread? If you had you would possibly understand why someone might just get a little bit irritated by someone who has no interest whatsoever in the subject but likes to interject little bits of nonsense in order to amuse himself. He chose to post a comment to me, otherwise I'd have been able to simply ignored him and carry on an interesting ( to me and some others ) debate.

 

Take a look at the post I was replying to when I called him a w@nker. He has no problem throwing out smartarse derogatory comments and my response was justified in my view.

[m williamson]

17 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

Err no, people do not vote against any party, they only vote for a party.

That vote does however show their preference and it's not for the party which ended up governing.

Yes and why was that, simply because we have a system where the party with the majority wins. 

Which is a flawed undemocratic system which does not reflect the wishes of the people. There are 43 countries in Europe and 40 of them use a PR system. It's the most democratic system as yet devised.

You have not thought that through very well have you! 

In what way? Are you seriously trying to say that an unelected Head of State, unelected Upper House and a FPTP voting system are democratic?

Ahh but there is no such thing as a true democracy. What you are stating though only applies to a direct democracy which is a very rare occurrence. Like many democracies around the world ours is a representative democracy. You also seem to be confusing democracy with they way those elected to represent us using elections are held.

You may have a point about the scarcity of true democracies but there are many more democratic countries than the UK. Any country which has a written constitution and the people are sovereign is more of a democracy than we are.

Fair enough FPTP need changing to some form of proportionality but is still will not alter the fact we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. A representative democracy is necessary simply because of the logistics involved.

Other countries manage with the people being sovereign. The only time they need to be consulted is when  parliament wants to change the constitution or wants to do something in contravention of the constitution. Those times should be very rare under normal circumstances. Usually the constitution is written in such a way that it enables the government to govern without hindrance.

 

[Dromedary]

1 hour ago, m williamson said:

That vote does however show their preference and it's not for the party which ended up governing.

But as there is more than one party the democratic way to deal with it is by having the party with the largest vote in power as we do not have PR and a FPTP system in place. Until that system changes we are stuck with what we have.

 

1 hour ago, m williamson said:

Which is a flawed undemocratic system which does not reflect the wishes of the people. 

No it is democratic under the current system and also does reflect the wishes of the people as the majority won.

 

1 hour ago, m williamson said:

In what way?

I was replying to this gem....

 

Quote:

 

"Fair enough. if that's what people want"

 

The very fact that it's what people want shows it is democratic.

 

1 hour ago, m williamson said:

Any country which has a written constitution and the people are sovereign is more of a democracy than we are.

Whether a constitution like ours is codified or not does not really matter. Now name me a country which is not a representative democracy where the people are sovereign and hold the power?

 

1 hour ago, m williamson said:

Other countries manage with the people being sovereign. The only time they need to be consulted is when  parliament wants to change the constitution or wants to do something in contravention of the constitution. Those times should be very rare under normal circumstances. Usually the constitution is written in such a way that it enables the government to govern without hindrance.

But that is exactly what happens in the UK even without a full codified constitution. In order to change a constitutional matter in law in the UK it has to go to a people's referendum first. Granted parliament does not have to accept the results of any referendum unless the result is written in the referendum design as being legally binding but to date no results have been classed as null and void.

 

The AV referendum was legally binding but the brexit one was not and yet the brexit result was passed into law because of a majority despite us having no codified constitution. That why being fully written or not the people's wishes were still carried out.

 

Now just look at the USA for instance which does have a codified constitution and see how that brings about problems. The "right to bear arms" is a classic example of how having a constitution written down a few hundred years ago that is set in stone can trip you up.

 

The one thing the UK needs to do first is change its FPTP system to a fairer form of PR. Having a codified constitution is just muddying the waters as it's not really necessary.

 

Edited January 1, 2023 by Dromedary
did a slinny

[m williamson]

5 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

But as there is more than one party the democratic way to deal with it is by having the party with the largest vote in power as we do not have PR and a FPTP system in place. Until that system changes we are stuck with what we have.

 

No it is democratic under the current system and also does reflect the wishes of the people as the majority won.

 

I was replying to this gem....

 

Quote:

 

"Fair enough. if that's what people want"

 

The very fact that it's what people want shows it is democratic.

 

Whether a constitution like ours is codified or not does not really matter. Now name me a country which is not a representative democracy where the people are sovereign and hold the power?

 

But that is exactly what happens in the UK even without a full codified constitution. In order to change a constitutional matter in law in the UK it has to go to a people's referendum first. Granted parliament does not have to accept the results of any referendum unless the result is written in the referendum design as being legally binding but to date no results have been classed as null and void.

 

The AV referendum was legally binding but the brexit one was not and yet the brexit result was passed into law because of a majority despite us having no codified constitution. That why being fully written or not the people's wishes were still carried out.

 

Now just look at the USA for instance which does have a codified constitution and see how that brings about problems. The "right to bear arms" is a classic example of how having a constitution written down a few hundred years ago that is set in stone can trip you up.

 

The one thing the UK needs to do first is change its FPTP system to a fairer form of PR. Having a codified constitution is just muddying the waters as it's not really necessary.

 

Ireland has a written constitution and the people are sovereign, which is why they had to hold a referendum to agree the Lisbon Treaty. In the UK the people had no involvement and parliament decided for them.

That didn't look so good in terms of democracy so the UK media invented a load of balls in order to deflect. " They made them vote again until they got it right " .

The second referendum was on an amended Treaty which had been altered to address the concerns raised by the terms of the first Treaty.

https://www.politico.eu/article/irish-secure-concessions-on-lisbon-treaty/ Ireland obtained legally binding assurances on several issues.

 

The current system is undemocratic in and of itself.  You can't just claim that something is democratic because that's the way we do it. The system does not represent the peoples wishes.

 

We don't know what the people want and won't find out unless they are asked. The politicians have no intention of asking because the present system suits them. The main reason they get away with it is because people are apathetic which suits the politicians down to the ground.

 

The Brexit referendum was carried out because of internal pressure from self selecting groups such as the ERG. Brexit was a vote to make the rich even richer and everyone else poorer.

Jacob Rees Mogg a main player in the ERG has made millions  https://www.channel4.com/press/news/brexiteer-jacob-rees-mogg-estimated-have-earnt-ps7m-investments-referendum-according since Brexit. The rest of us are going to have to be patient, perhaps 50 years or so Jacob said.

The company he founded Somerset Capitol moved some of its operations to Dublin in order to continue to have access to the EU.

 

An unwritten constitution which requires lawyers to interpret is of no use whatsoever to the general public. A constitution should lay down both the rights and the responsibilities of the citizens of the country in a way that they can understand.

The British constitution as it stands is only of use to the establishment who can interpret it any way they like and no ordinary member of the public question them on it because it's completely obtuse to us.

 

I'd agree that the American constitution has caused problems mainly because of the right to bear arms which was included centuries ago when they were worried about the British trying to come back.

Any written constitution drafted today would be appropriate for the time and would be amended as and when necessary.

 

 

[hackey lad]

39 minutes ago, m williamson said:

Ireland has a written constitution and the people are sovereign, which is why they had to hold a referendum to agree the Lisbon Treaty. In the UK the people had no involvement and parliament decided for them.

That didn't look so good in terms of democracy so the UK media invented a load of balls in order to deflect. " They made them vote again until they got it right " .

The second referendum was on an amended Treaty which had been altered to address the concerns raised by the terms of the first Treaty.

https://www.politico.eu/article/irish-secure-concessions-on-lisbon-treaty/ Ireland obtained legally binding assurances on several issues.

 

The current system is undemocratic in and of itself.  You can't just claim that something is democratic because that's the way we do it. The system does not represent the peoples wishes.

 

We don't know what the people want and won't find out unless they are asked. The politicians have no intention of asking because the present system suits them. The main reason they get away with it is because people are apathetic which suits the politicians down to the ground.

 

The Brexit referendum was carried out because of internal pressure from self selecting groups such as the ERG. Brexit was a vote to make the rich even richer and everyone else poorer.

Jacob Rees Mogg a main player in the ERG has made millions  https://www.channel4.com/press/news/brexiteer-jacob-rees-mogg-estimated-have-earnt-ps7m-investments-referendum-according since Brexit. The rest of us are going to have to be patient, perhaps 50 years or so Jacob said.

The company he founded Somerset Capitol moved some of its operations to Dublin in order to continue to have access to the EU.

 

An unwritten constitution which requires lawyers to interpret is of no use whatsoever to the general public. A constitution should lay down both the rights and the responsibilities of the citizens of the country in a way that they can understand.

The British constitution as it stands is only of use to the establishment who can interpret it any way they like and no ordinary member of the public question them on it because it's completely obtuse to us.

 

I'd agree that the American constitution has caused problems mainly because of the right to bear arms which was included centuries ago when they were worried about the British trying to come back.

Any written constitution drafted today would be appropriate for the time and would be amended as and when necessary.

 

 

Bet your a reight  laugh at parties