UKIP go from strength to strength

[Alba]

Should we give up the Union Jack then?

I'd suggest we go a wee bit further and dismantle the foundations of the Union. The quicker we distance ourselves from the Union, the better. We could all be friendly neighbours instead of bickering flatmates.

I have my own personal reasons to not recognize the Union Jack anymore. Being British is nothing more than being a technicality.

 

[brennan]

Not a bad idea. I'd rather get rid of the monarchy, myself.

Any particular reason?

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

I have been wondering about this. Who is making the decision? If this is the networks, say ITV, what cause would the Greens have to sue them? If they think getting UKIP on will get more people to watch, so more people to watch the adverts, so more value to buy say coca cola, so coca cola to pay ITV more, then why should they not be able to make this decision? If they think getting the Greens on will only get hippies to watch, and they will not buy coca cola any way, should they not be allowed to make this decision?

I quite agree it is bad for democracy, but can you sue because of that?

Under UK broadcasting rules, commercial considerations must be separated from political coverage. The commercial public broadcasters (Channel 4, Channel 5, S4C, ITV, STV and UTV) have to provide fair election coverage as a condition of their franchises/licences. If they sell advertising around it as well, that's a bonus. Ofcom awards those rights and duties and provides guidance on them to further separate money and power. However, if the Greens think a broadcaster is acting unlawfully they can sue - the broadcaster is exceeding its powers.

The BBC set-up has different structures but similar aims.

 

[Takhisis]

Any particular reason?

Well, I've posted this kind of thign over the forum already, so I'll give a condensed version.
By 'doing away with the monarchy' I don't mean just removing the figurehead kings and queens: the UK government structure needs a complete overhaul. Half the government structure is not based on law but on non-enforceable 'conventions'. Running things on convention (i.e. I trust your word that you won't do what you said you wouldn't do) is how a greengrocer runs a street stall, not a serious country. The UK needs to have a constitution and stop mucking about with this 'Parliamentary sovereignty' doctrine that states that the Queen in Parliament can do whatever the hell they want and are accountable to no one, legally, they could order anyone to be executed or elections to be no longer held (and if the House of Lords should veto such an attempt, the Commons could try and pass a bill saying they can't!). Imagine if last month's referendum had been won by the Yes side. How would things have been arranged? How would the split-up have been managed? Nobody knows because the UK government (in the broad sense) is just a series of greengrocer's arrangements. Since we're at that, what would happen if the Parliament in London tried to abolish any of the regional Parliaments or Aseemblies? Remember that, technically, Canada is a Dominion… can you abolish that? By established usage and convention I'd say not… but at least within the UK's legal framework you could mount a wacky case for abolishing Canada's de facto independence. They'd probably laugh and send a squad of trained man-eating moose over.
(If you want me to I can go over and quote Lord Templeman and a few other jurists, but I don't know how many people are able to follow that on this forum)

As for abolishing the positions of King and Queen and the nobility in general, I don't like teaching children that some people are born better than others. Bowing? Reverences? Callign someone 'Your Majesty/Your Grace/Sir/etc.'? Why? In general they're a bunch of degenerates these days, so they can't even claim to be the optimates anymore.

 

[Arakhor]

I'd be more than happy if we scrapped the 1911 Parliamentary Sovereignty Act, but of course, we'd need to replace it with something else. The main reason I'm opposed to fruitcake policies such as pulling out of Europe is that the EU is the only restriction on any sitting parliament. I wouldn't trust the pre-coalition Liberal Democrats and Greens to implement a set of British-only human rights, so why in all that is holy would I trust the Tories and/or UKIP to tell me what my human rights will be??

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You say to-may-toe poke, I like to-mah-toe skewer...

You know your classics. To-may-to, or not to-mah-to, that's a question.

 

[Borachio]

What's this about the UK abandoning the European Convention on Human Rights?

“The Conservatives don’t care about the rights of British citizens – they care about losing to Ukip".

Seems an odd one to me.

Especially as the Convention was originally known by the name of the Treaty of London, they tell me.

edit: They tell me wrong it seems. (Or maybe I have wax in my ears.) There have been several Treaties of London, but this ain't one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

 

[Takhisis]

I'd be more than happy if we scrapped the 1911 Parliamentary Sovereignty Act, but of course, we'd need to replace it with something else.

Like a Constitution which can actually bind Parliament and allows judges to declare laws to be, well, inconstitutional? God forbid that the glorious Empire of which Cameron is so proud descend to such depths.

 

[Old Hippy]

Like a Constitution which can actually bind Parliament and allows judges to declare laws to be, well, inconstitutional? God forbid that the glorious Empire of which Cameron is so proud descend to such depths.

I just hope that when you get a vote for change you do not have to vote for retaining the monarchy as the best option of the choices they gave you....

it sucks...

 

[brennan]

stop mucking about with this 'Parliamentary sovereignty' doctrine that states that the Queen in Parliament can do whatever the hell they want and are accountable to no one

See, to me, this sort of comment admits an element of fantasy. The Queen doesn't do anything apart from participate in ceremony. All new legislation is voted for by elected representatives. And our unwritten constitution works better than the US does, with their gobsmackingly rigid treatment of a document (and its amendments) as almost divine perfection.

Imagine if last month's referendum had been won by the Yes side. How would things have been arranged? How would the split-up have been managed?

I can think of a place where they ...ah...discussed this issue and have a written constitution. Didn't go to well as I recall.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Imagine if last month's referendum had been won by the Yes side. How would things have been arranged? How would the split-up have been managed? Nobody knows because the UK government (in the broad sense) is just a series of greengrocer's arrangements.

Nobody knows? Not the Australians, Belizeans, Canadians, Cypriots, Gambians, Ghanians, Indians, Kenyans, Malaysians, Maltese, New Zealanders, Nigerians, Pakistanis, South Africans, Tanzanians, Ugandas, or Yemenis? It must be a shock to them all to discover that they're still living in British soverign territory.

Oh, and if you're going to say that none of these were part of the UK, you could always ask the Irish. I'm not saying that one worked out perfectly, but there's certainly are precedents that can be pulled out of the archives and dusted off, which is how the British constitutional system works.

Remember that, technically, Canada is a Dominion… can you abolish that? By established usage and convention I'd say not… but at least within the UK's legal framework you could mount a wacky case for abolishing Canada's de facto independence.

You could make a wacky case, but the Statute of Westminster 1931 S.4 and the Canada Act 1982 S.2 are pretty clear on the matter: "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law."

 

[Arakhor]

Well, I suppose that they could be repealed (citing the Parliamentary Sovereignty Act of 1911), but since Canada is to all intents and purposes an independent country with the same head of state, I'm sure that the Canadian government would pay such measures the contempt they would richly deserve.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

This is the second time you have cited the Parliamentary Sovereignty Act 1911. It does not exist.

 

[Flying Pig]

Parliamentary Sovereignty is much older than that - it's a 'negative' doctrine, if you like, which exists because we've never said that it doesn't. The Parliament Act 1911 simply removed some of the powers of the House of Lords.

 

[Tahuti]

This is the second time you have cited the Parliamentary Sovereignty Act 1911. It does not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911

Granted, it doesn't have sovereignty in the original text, yet this is pretty much what is meant.

This is the second time you have cited 9/11. It does not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

This is the second time you have cited the French revolution. It does not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

This is the second time you have cited the Holocaust. It does not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What an odd sequence of posts.

 

[Tahuti]

What an odd sequence of posts.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Takhisis]

Well, I don't know what is going on between SeekTruthFromFacts and Kaiserguard so I'll let them sort it out, preferably in a separate room.

I just hope that when you get a vote for change you do not have to vote for retaining the monarchy as the best option of the choices they gave you....

it sucks...

That's what you get when you insist on electing politicians to power.

See, to me, this sort of comment admits an element of fantasy. The Queen doesn't do anything apart from participate in ceremony. All new legislation is voted for by elected representatives. And our unwritten constitution works better than the US does, with their gobsmackingly rigid treatment of a document (and its amendments) as almost divine perfection.

I can think of a place where they ...ah...discussed this issue and have a written constitution. Didn't go to well as I recall.

Your posts appears to claim that I defend or even like the US political system. Both are rotten to the core.

But no, with the First-past-the-post system you don't get popular representation. Ole maggie lost the popular vote and held on to power, how's that?

Nobody knows? Not the Australians, Belizeans, Canadians, Cypriots, Gambians, Ghanians, Indians, Kenyans, Malaysians, Maltese, New Zealanders, Nigerians, Pakistanis, South Africans, Tanzanians, Ugandas, or Yemenis? It must be a shock to them all to discover that they're still living in British soverign territory.

I was just pointing out how wacky you can go if you keep strictly to the letter of the law.

Oh, and if you're going to say that none of these were part of the UK, you could always ask the Irish. I'm not saying that one worked out perfectly, but there's certainly are precedents that can be pulled out of the archives and dusted off, which is how the British constitutional system works.

Precedents exist in many other legal systems as well.

You could make a wacky case, but the Statute of Westminster 1931 S.4 and the Canada Act 1982 S.2 are pretty clear on the matter: "No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law."

Yes, I repeat myself I was making a wacky case. Parliament could abolish the Statute of Westminster 1931 in a trice, by a simple majority vote.

 

[Flying Pig]

And then you run into what might be termed the zeroeth law of lawmaking - a law is only valid if the lawmaker can enforce it.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911

Granted, it doesn't have sovereignty in the original text, yet this is pretty much what is meant.

The Parliament Act 1911 did not create or even confirm the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty; it just changed the powers of the House of Lords and the length of Parliaments. And it has never been called the Parliamentary Sovereignty Act!

The point of your later posts seems to be to suggest that I am denying historical facts. I am merely pointing out that you are referencing something that doesn't exist: like the Iraqi attack on September 11, the Marxist Revolution that overthrew the Bourbons, or the attempted genocide of Muslims in the Holocaust.