Brexit Thread VIII: Taking a penalty kick-ing

[EnglishEdward]

All laws are "substantive". I challenge you to read through everything that gets passed within a year even just once, before you propose something like this...

In the UK we have primary legislation and a system of subordinate statutory instruments.

As a simplification, by substantive, I am referring to the former.

 

[Samson]

In the UK we have primary legislation and a system of subordinate statutory instruments.

As a simplification, by substantive, I am referring to the former.

Are these all primary legislation? That is more that I am going to read.

 

[EnglishEdward]

@ Samson

Voting is not compulsory, and you would only need to read and
vote on those bills, you thought important enough to vote on.

But perhaps you'd prefer to continue to delegate that right to
your MP, selected for loyalty to the party, who most likely does
not even read the Acts of Parliament that they voted on.

 

[Samson]

@ Samson

Voting is not compulsory, and you would only need to read and
vote on those bills, you thought important enough to vote on.

But perhaps you'd prefer to continue to delegate that right to
your MP, selected for loyalty to the party, who most likely does
not even read the Acts of Parliament that they voted on.

I do not have a great alternative to representative democracy. To go for the extreme you suggest, where all primary leglislation goes to the people seems dangerous to me, as such a small proportion of the population will read the documents that either the decision will be made by people who are uninformed or by a tiny non-representative fraction (and quite possibly both).

New scientist has presented a "liquid democracy" approach, where you can vote directly or delegate your vote on all or some issues to another. It uses blockchain though, and we know about that.

Spoiler Blockchain voting :

 

[Verbose]

Do you sign documents without reading what they say?

No, but that's not really relevant unless one thinks royalty should be somehow involved in legislation. My king doesn't have even ceremonial powers where legislation is concerned. And that is by design.

 

[Yeekim]

No.

I've never met anyone who has met anyone who reads any of the EULAs they accept...

 

[Verbose]

I've never met anyone who has met anyone who reads any of the EULAs they accept...

Sure. Let's say I was answering in principle.

 

[Gorbles]

A lot of this sure sounds like blaming the voters for something they likely don't have the time to do while also in a full-time job.

 

[really]

I'm by no means a royalist, but I think perhaps this is being blown out of proportion. Unless there are some actual examples that are more relevant and perhaps closer to modern times?

Isn't that the point though?
If something never makes it to parliament, or is edited before being presented you don't get to know it.
The revelations are coming from archives and are being inferred. It's as clear as mud.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I've never met anyone who has met anyone who reads any of the EULAs they accept...

I have read several EULAs before accepting.

I even declined a couple.

Sometimes it is not practical to read the EULA where the web site leads you to a
page with about 30 different EULAs in about 20 languages starting with I guess Arabic;
without giving you any indication as to which EULA is applicable to what one is using.

 

[Gorbles]

Isn't that the point though?
If something never makes it to parliament, or is edited before being presented you don't get to know it.
The revelations are coming from archives and are being inferred. It's as clear as mud.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the concern (and Charles' apparent behaviour in particular - it looks like he's been taking the lion's share of the advantage in this regard). But that's not the same thing as "we should devote time and energy to this problem", because that in of itself is a different problem. Like I said, if the MPs had a vote on it and didn't come up any particular way, what are you supposed to do? Either the MPs are "in on it" (which would presume there's some quid pro quo, which would make it theoretically easier to unearth by simply correlating bills to MPs' earnings, etc), or they have the ability to see the knowledge that we don't and it genuinely isn't taken advantage of as much as the explosive headline would like us to believe.

So let's take the worst case scenario. It happens more than anyone has been able to prove thus far, the entire notion of the Queen and Royal Family not infering in politics is completely shambolic (vs. taken advantage of at times), and elected MPs across, presumably, all of the major parties in UK politics, are in on it.

What do we do? What I would do is estimate impact and work from there. And at the moment, I'm sorry, but there are other things that need to be a pressing concern. That doesn't make this not a concern. And I'm not saying we shouldn't care about it. If it's important to you - go and do what you think is best about it, even if it's just spreading awareness.

But that's not what I'm doing, because contextually there are bigger fish to fry, and it's very convenient that this is making headlines in the middle of our rubbish government making a rubbish mess of two of the biggest things in recent British history (Covid-19 and Brexit, for the record). Our media covers for the government a lot of the time. Some publications are less complicit, and some are more. But even those that are less complicit will know that this takes attention from the government in this time of crisis. I'm too cynical to believe that they do this because it's inherently a noble goal. That's on me.

 

[Takhisis]

Unless there are some actual examples that are more relevant and perhaps closer to modern times?

Such as these ones I actually quoted in the message which you were answering?

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill 30 December 2020 Commons Link
European Union (Future Relationship) Bill 30 December 2020 Lords Link

That's why I specifically posted it here instead of in the general UK politics thread.

Well, even if she did interfere with financial regulation for her own benefit, that still doesn't even put her in the same league as the MPs who caused Brexit to protect their financial dealings.

Why not both?

 

[FriendlyFire]

@ Samson

Voting is not compulsory, and you would only need to read and
vote on those bills, you thought important enough to vote on.

But perhaps you'd prefer to continue to delegate that right to
your MP, selected for loyalty to the party, who most likely does
not even read the Acts of Parliament that they voted on.

Iam sure the UK government read all 1250 pages of the Brexit Agreement before signing / voting
Perhaps you NOT delegate your vote to your MP

Or Maybe and this is crazy idea, Vote into power good people that are honest, intelligent and capable ?

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, even if she did interfere with financial regulation for her own benefit, that still doesn't even put her in the same league as the MPs who caused Brexit to protect their financial dealings.

Doesn't the queen have a lot more (granted, earned from hard work) money and properties than almost all the mps combined?
You seemed to be very annoyed by "saint Corbyn", but st Polyphemus is your advisor when it comes to the queen

 

[Gorbles]

Such as these ones I actually quoted in the message which you were answering?

That's why I specifically posted it here instead of in the general UK politics thread.

Those were in the context of an article raising the regular vetting of bills, as supposed to the proverbial smoking gun of such bills allegedly being changed. There is no evidence for the bills you linked being affected.

The Guardian has uncovered evidence of lobbying for changes to at least four draft laws, but it is possible she interfered with many more.

It's very hard to get on board with scaremongering if there isn't actual evidence, sorry. Changes to four draft laws out of a thousand or more is not a high percentage. We have more pressing issues than Charles being a selfish grifter (which is also common knowledge, and that knowledge hasn't actually done much to harm him regardless).

But like I said, let's assume the worst. I asked questions assuming the worst case is true and valid and worth debating. Why didn't you answer them?

What do we do? How do we enact change given that this is being trotted out in the time and under the government it is?

 

[Hrothbern]

Don't get me wrong, I understand the concern (and Charles' apparent behaviour in particular - it looks like he's been taking the lion's share of the advantage in this regard). But that's not the same thing as "we should devote time and energy to this problem", because that in of itself is a different problem. Like I said, if the MPs had a vote on it and didn't come up any particular way, what are you supposed to do? Either the MPs are "in on it" (which would presume there's some quid pro quo, which would make it theoretically easier to unearth by simply correlating bills to MPs' earnings, etc), or they have the ability to see the knowledge that we don't and it genuinely isn't taken advantage of as much as the explosive headline would like us to believe.

So let's take the worst case scenario. It happens more than anyone has been able to prove thus far, the entire notion of the Queen and Royal Family not infering in politics is completely shambolic (vs. taken advantage of at times), and elected MPs across, presumably, all of the major parties in UK politics, are in on it.

What do we do? What I would do is estimate impact and work from there. And at the moment, I'm sorry, but there are other things that need to be a pressing concern. That doesn't make this not a concern. And I'm not saying we shouldn't care about it. If it's important to you - go and do what you think is best about it, even if it's just spreading awareness.

But that's not what I'm doing, because contextually there are bigger fish to fry, and it's very convenient that this is making headlines in the middle of our rubbish government making a rubbish mess of two of the biggest things in recent British history (Covid-19 and Brexit, for the record). Our media covers for the government a lot of the time. Some publications are less complicit, and some are more. But even those that are less complicit will know that this takes attention from the government in this time of crisis. I'm too cynical to believe that they do this because it's inherently a noble goal. That's on me.

By law their Royal money is so far protected. But can they bear a nagging, grunting resentment by too many ?
The minimum that the Royal family can do is invest that money in Environmental protection, which can include renewables.
Not a Prince Charles speaking nice words about a somewhat progressive civilised approach to everything including environment.... all paid by others... but add some deeds.
Renewables is already becoming businesses usual.
Investing money with as return sustainable biodiversity of the environment seems to me more appropiate... as deeds... with their own money to be clear.

 

[Gorbles]

By law their Royal money is so far protected. But can they bear a nagging, grunting resentment by too many ?
The minimum that the Royal family can do is invest that money in Environmental protection, which can include renewables.
Not a Prince Charles speaking nice words about a somewhat progressive civilised approach to everything including environment.... all paid by others... but add some deeds.
Renewables is already becoming businesses usual.
Investing money with as return sustainable biodiversity of the environment seems to me more appropiate... as deeds... with their own money to be clear.

There's a reason William and Harry were perceived better than a lot of the core nucleus of the Royals (i.e. not the second and third cousins and so on). Some of it was because of Diana, of course, but they actively did things. Up until the mess with the media smearing Markle, Harry did all sorts (and arguably also won points by leaving the Family to defend his wife and own family). William's fallen more in line with the throne since his marriage, and we'll likely see people sour on him in the same way as his father (perhaps not as badly, but who knows).

There are merits to the tourism aspect of Royal holdings, and the Royal Family that cannot be ignored, but it's not like classical republicans or even outright anti-monarchists don't have valid points either. They're a holdover of an absolutist monarchy, they have safety nets our working poor and homeless can only dream of, and their privilege cannot be overstated.

It's a bit of a mess, culturally, at this stage. I have no problem with their problems being aired. I wouldn't be upset if laws were changed in light of this. But they still command popular support, because of how they tie into the (often mythical) belief of Britain, of England's culture, and all that jazz. So MPs are hamstrung on that front too. Corbyn was famously republican, and that uh . . . didn't do him well (I mean, honestly, nothing he did was reported on fairly, but that was one of the highlighted things).

It'd be nice if we could click our fingers and undo one of the largest relics of the Empire and previous English history. But we can't do that, so outside of your sensible suggestion (which is also, in a way, PR - not putting it down, but that's how it will be used) . . . what do we do?

 

[Kyriakos]

There's a reason William and Harry were perceived better than a lot of the core nucleus of the Royals (i.e. not the second and third cousins and so on). Some of it was because of Diana, of course, but they actively did things. Up until the mess with the media smearing Markle, Harry did all sorts (and arguably also won points by leaving the Family to defend his wife and own family). William's fallen more in line with the throne since his marriage, and we'll likely see people sour on him in the same way as his father (perhaps not as badly, but who knows).

There are merits to the tourism aspect of Royal holdings, and the Royal Family that cannot be ignored, but it's not like classical republicans or even outright anti-monarchists don't have valid points either. They're a holdover of an absolutist monarchy, they have safety nets our working poor and homeless can only dream of, and their privilege cannot be overstated.

It's a bit of a mess, culturally, at this stage. I have no problem with their problems being aired. I wouldn't be upset if laws were changed in light of this. But they still command popular support, because of how they tie into the (often mythical) belief of Britain, of England's culture, and all that jazz. So MPs are hamstrung on that front too. Corbyn was famously republican, and that uh . . . didn't do him well (I mean, honestly, nothing he did was reported on fairly, but that was one of the highlighted things).

It'd be nice if we could click our fingers and undo one of the largest relics of the Empire and previous English history. But we can't do that, so outside of your sensible suggestion (which is also, in a way, PR - not putting it down, but that's how it will be used) . . . what do we do?

I think it's time for England to wake up from the dream.
The empire is gone. Relevance is gone. Even secondary power status is gone.
The monarchy seems to be part of the "tory appeal to poor people" predicament, in a cultural hegemony kind of way.

 

[Gorbles]

I think it's time for England to wake up from the dream.
The empire is gone. Relevance is gone. Even secondary power status is gone.
The monarchy seems to be part of the "tory appeal to poor people" predicament, in a cultural hegemony kind of way.

I agree they are, but the trick is "waking up from the dream". Look at Brexit (and I don't mean this in a "ha ha it sucks" kind of way, though, haha, it really sucks). People will believe anything if you sell them hard enough on it. And the monarchy (and Empire) has decades and centuries of a headstart.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Iam sure the UK government read all 1250 pages of the Brexit Agreement before signing / voting

I really don't think so.

The 11th hour timescales didn't really permit a proper reading.

That is why the EU played brinkmanship until the 11th hour.

In some ways one may regard the two agreements as EULAs;
signed without being properly read and understood.