Europe

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So would you have supported the abolishment of the death penalty if 75% of Brits had agreed with it? (IIRC, that was the statistic of people who agreed with it in Germany when it was abolished)

I personally would not support the idea - presuming "death penalty" is generic for whichever policy I support - of abolishing it, but if that was the will of the people, I would not be as upset.

[Furunculus]

So would you have supported the abolisment of the death penalty if 75% of Brits had agreed with it? (IIRC, that was the statistic of people who agreed with it in Germany when it was abolished)

I was exposed to that propaganda for just under two months, as I was born in July 92

yes.

no you weren't, you just get your pro-EU propaganda mixed in with some blame-the-eu tub-thumping from some opportunist british politicians.

[Furunculus]

*Sigh*

The ECHR is not a part of the EU.

And for the record, that particular law wich was condemned by the court is a fascist abomination (literally - it was instituted by Mussolini and never repealed)

*Sigh x1000 (because i just love to be dramatic*

don't care, the ECHR is a legal authority that is not ultimately answerable to Britain, nor is it formed from british ideas of justice.

who cares what the law is, it's italy and therefore not my problem. the fact that they asserted their sovereignty is the limit of my interest.

[Subotan]

I personally would not support the idea - presuming "death penalty" is generic for whichever policy I support - of abolishing it, but if that was the will of the people, I would not be as upset.

yes.

Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that if 75% of people had opposed the abolishment of the death penalty

no you weren't,

Um, I think I know when I was born.

you just get your pro-EU propaganda mixed in with some blame-the-eu tub-thumping from some opportunist british politicians.

How wowuld I do that?

don't care, the ECHR is a legal authority that is not ultimately answerable to Britain

It's an international organisation, of course it isn't in the strict definition you apply to "answerable". In that case, neither is the UN, Nato, etc.

nor is it formed from british ideas of justice.

So? Is the European idea of justice totally alien and incompatible with ours? Besides, the ECHR is vague enough so as to be applicable to any liberal democracy.

who cares what the law is, it's italy and therefore not my problem. the fact that they asserted their sovereignty is the limit of my interest.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that if 75% of people had opposed the abolishment of the death penalty

Same answer. I would acknowledge the will of the people, even if I did not support the specific policy.

[Furunculus]

Sorry, I was unclear, I meant that if 75% of people had opposed the abolishment of the death penalty

Um, I think I know when I was born.

It's an international organisation, of course it isn't in the strict definition you apply to "answerable". In that case, neither is the UN, Nato, etc.

So? Is the European idea of justice totally alien and incompatible with ours? Besides, the ECHR is vague enough so as to be applicable to any liberal democracy.

yes. i don't have a strong opinion on the death penalty. i am mildly in favour, but happy to go whichever way the majority of my compatriots choose.

EU propoganda did not stop in 1992, therefore you did not stop being subjected to it shortly after you were born.

we have a system of common law that adapts and moulds itself to judicial precedent, case law. i don't want the final authority on elements of case law that effects internal british governance decided by a non-british body.

as above, and no, while not totally alien many continental countries do not adhere to fundamental legal principles as applied in britain, i.e. trial by jury, common law, presumption of innocence, etc.

whatever. it is an internal italian matter that is no business or interest of mine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

on the related subject of europe and its superpower ambitions:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...uperpower.html

Haiti response shows the difference between the EU and a superpower
The earthquake in Haiti provoked prompt and effective action from the US, and waffle from the EU, says Christopher Booker
Published: 6:49PM GMT 16 Jan 2010

Compare and contrast the initial responses of two "major world powers" to the Haitian earthquake disaster. Within hours of Port-au-Prince crumbling into ruins, the US had sent in an aircraft carrier with 19 helicopters, hospital and assault ships, the 82nd Airborne Division with 3,500 troops and hundreds of medical personnel. They put the country's small airport back on an operational footing, and President Obama pledged an initial $100 million dollars in emergency aid.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the European Union geared itself up with a Brussels press conference led by Commission Vice-President Baroness Ashton, now the EU's High Representative – our new foreign minister. A scattering of bored-looking journalists in the Commission's lavishly appointed press room heard the former head of Hertfordshire Health Authority stumbling through a prepared statement, in which she said that she had conveyed her "condolences" to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, and pledged three million euros in aid.

A gaggle of other Commision spokesmen followed, to report offers of help from individual member states, such as a few search and rescue teams, tents and water purification units. We were also told that an official EU representative would be trying to reach Haiti from the Dominican Republic, to stay for a few hours before returning to report what he had found.

Memories might have gone back to December 2004, which saw similarly contrasting responses to the Indian Ocean tsunami catastrophe which cost nearly 300,000 lives. Again, within hours the US took the lead in forming an alliance with Australia, India and Japan, and had sent in two battle groups fully equipped to deal with such an emergency, including 20 ships led by two carriers with 90 helicopters. President Bush immediately pledged $35 million, later rising to $350 million. Because they were self-sufficient, the US forces pulled off a stupendously successful life-saving operation, almost entirely ignored by the British media, notably the BBC (whose journalists on the spot were nevertheless quite happy to hitch lifts from US helicopters).

The EU, by contrast, pledged three million euros for the tsunami victims, called for a three-minute silence (three times longer than is customary to remember the millions who died in two world wars) and proposed a "donors' conference" in Jakarta nearly two weeks later to discuss what might be done.

The only real difference between these two episodes is that, in the five years which have elapsed since 2004, the EU has even more noisily laid claim to its status as what Tony Blair liked to call "a world superpower", capable of standing on the world stage as an equal of the US. Anyone who witnessed the dismal showing at Thursday's press conference of the High Representative, which would scarcely have passed muster at a board meeting of the Hertfordshire Health Authority, might well cringe at the thought.

[Subotan]

Same answer. I would acknowledge the will of the people, even if I did not support the specific policy.

yes. i don't have a strong opinion on the death penalty. i am mildly in favour, but happy to go whichever way the majority of my compatriots choose.

Even if the abolishment of it would (Hypothetically) lead to a situation where the majority of people opposed the death penalty?
(When the death penalty was abolished in Germany, 77% of West Germans supported the death penalty. Now, Germany is one of the most vocal opponent of the death penalty)

EU propoganda did not stop in 1992, therefore you did not stop being subjected to it shortly after you were born.

Oh? Then why do the vast majority of the media in the UK so vehemently oppose the "Barmy Brussels Bureaucrats"? Allthough it would be nice to think they were double bluffing.

we have a system of common law that adapts and moulds itself to judicial precedent, case law.

Glancing through the ECHR, I don't see anything that our flexible judicial system can adapt to. Although it is interesting that "X vs. United Kingdom" keeps cropping up time and time again

i don't want the final authority on elements of case law that effects internal british governance decided by a non-british body.

There are plenty of examples of similar situations e.g Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs which aren't intrinsically European.

as above, and no, while not totally alien many continental countries do not adhere to fundamental legal principles as applied in britain, i.e. trial by jury, common law, presumption of innocence, etc.

Source? I admit, I know next to nothing about law, so I can't really comment on stuff like that in great deal. That doesn't mean I don't want to know though.

[Kralizec]

*Sigh x1000 (because i just love to be dramatic*

don't care, the ECHR is a legal authority that is not ultimately answerable to Britain, nor is it formed from british ideas of justice.

who cares what the law is, it's italy and therefore not my problem. the fact that they asserted their sovereignty is the limit of my interest.

*Sighs x2000*

Would you also applaud Saudi Arabia if it dismisses criticism of its human rights situation? It would only be consistent if you did, since sovereignty is basically the ability to raise the middle finger to others when it comes to "your" territory.

It's not as if the European Court of Human Rights ever was capable of amending Italian laws, or whatever. The political indignation with this ruling has absolutely nothing to do with concerns about sovereignty and everything with christian (or rather, catholic) chauvinism. If Italy doesn't want others to criticize them on human rights, they should not have agreed to be criticized about it in the first place by signing the ECHR. The person who wrote that article doesn't know what he's talking about.

....

About the CAP, I don't like it in it's current form. But at the same time, I realize that the EU needs some sort of common agricultural policy. Just not this one.
Think about it, if farming subsidies weren't standardised and centralised as they are now, France would simply give their farmers a buttload of cash and said farmers would then out"compete" any other farmers in Europe. While I'm against subsidizing farmers, giving every farmer the same at least ensures that competition within the EU is fair.

Personally, I'd scrap the subsidies and raise tariffs for farming products that come from countries such as the US wich still subsidize their farmers.

[Furunculus]

as above, and no, while not totally alien many continental countries do not adhere to fundamental legal principles as applied in britain, i.e. trial by jury, common law, presumption of innocence, etc.

Source? I admit, I know next to nothing about law, so I can't really comment on stuff like that in great deal. That doesn't mean I don't want to know though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_l...egal_system%29

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

*Sigh*

The ECHR is not a part of the EU. And for the record, that particular law wich was condemned by the court is a fascist abomination (literally - it was instituted by Mussolini and never repealed)

AFAIK most condemning verdicts by the ECHR are acted upon by the country involved because they're often considered embarassing. Not in this case apparently, though I'm not surprised. I've often wondered if Italian politicians are even capable of feeling embarrassment.

You are quite correct. The ECHR is not an EU intitution at all.

The ECHR is one of the wonders of Europe. Where else does a citizen have access to an independent international court that guards over his basic human rights?
All European states expected that the others would be most affected by this court. All have been given a brutal wake-up call, for no state in Europe is beyond the temptation to infringe the human rights of its citizens.


However, there is one caveat: Lisbon enabled the EU to subscribe to arbitration by the ECHR. The EU is since a month a legal entity of its own (although many people presumed, most notably those against the EU, that it had been so for ages). Together with all the member states, the EU is now directly bound by the ECHR.
This is one of the great aspects of Lisbon: the EU is now bound directly by legal precedent of the European Court for Human Rights.

If I get the case correct, 'Lautsi' can now use the EU legal system as a further means to assert his rights against his government. The Italian state now not just has to face with a toothless court, but with the EU, if it seeks to act against its own legal obligations.


As for Italy - I suppose no-one is surprised anymore that Berlusconi would brush aside Italian law and treaties, would act against his own constitution.
But I'll never get used to his supporters at home and abroad, cheering him on to do so.

[Louis VI the Fat]

who cares what the law is, it's italy and therefore not my problem. the fact that they asserted their sovereignty is the limit of my interest.

The consequences are that basically, according to this, the state must enjoy absolute sovereignity over its subjects.

'The will of the people', expressed in vague notions, and whatever that may be, is the final word.

Me, I think the individual citizen has inalieble rights, which no state can infringe upon. These rights are expressed in law, constitutions, and reviewed by an independent judicial system, and no state can infringe upon them unless through proper channels.

as above, and no, while not totally alien many continental countries do not adhere to fundamental legal principles as applied in britain, i.e. trial by jury, common law, presumption of innocence, etc.

Presumption of innocence and trial by jury have been continental legal concepts since Celts where hunting wild boars on the British Isles.

It is a common misconception that, because concepts like 'Habeas Corpus' and 'presumption of innocence' are differently expressed in continental and common law legal systems, they therefore should not exist in one or the other.

For example, both the French declaration of Human Rights of 1789, and the ECHR of 1950, and the EU's own charter of human rights, and every legal system of every single member of the EU expresses the notion of 'presumption of innocence'.

on the related subject of europe and its superpower ambitions:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...uperpower.html

Haiti response shows the difference between the EU and a superpower
The earthquake in Haiti provoked prompt and effective action from the US, and waffle from the EU, says Christopher Booker
Published: 6:49PM GMT 16 Jan 2010

Compare and contrast the initial responses of two "major world powers" to the Haitian earthquake disaster. Within hours of Port-au-Prince crumbling into ruins, the US had sent in an aircraft carrier with 19 helicopters, hospital and assault ships, the 82nd Airborne Division with 3,500 troops and hundreds of medical personnel. They put the country's small airport back on an operational footing, and President Obama pledged an initial $100 million dollars in emergency aid.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the European Union geared itself up with a Brussels press conference led by Commission Vice-President Baroness Ashton, now the EU's High Representative – our new foreign minister. A scattering of bored-looking journalists in the Commission's lavishly appointed press room heard the former head of Hertfordshire Health Authority stumbling through a prepared statement, in which she said that she had conveyed her "condolences" to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, and pledged three million euros in aid.

A gaggle of other Commision spokesmen followed, to report offers of help from individual member states, such as a few search and rescue teams, tents and water purification units. We were also told that an official EU representative would be trying to reach Haiti from the Dominican Republic, to stay for a few hours before returning to report what he had found.

Memories might have gone back to December 2004, which saw similarly contrasting responses to the Indian Ocean tsunami catastrophe which cost nearly 300,000 lives. Again, within hours the US took the lead in forming an alliance with Australia, India and Japan, and had sent in two battle groups fully equipped to deal with such an emergency, including 20 ships led by two carriers with 90 helicopters. President Bush immediately pledged $35 million, later rising to $350 million. Because they were self-sufficient, the US forces pulled off a stupendously successful life-saving operation, almost entirely ignored by the British media, notably the BBC (whose journalists on the spot were nevertheless quite happy to hitch lifts from US helicopters).

The EU, by contrast, pledged three million euros for the tsunami victims, called for a three-minute silence (three times longer than is customary to remember the millions who died in two world wars) and proposed a "donors' conference" in Jakarta nearly two weeks later to discuss what might be done.

The only real difference between these two episodes is that, in the five years which have elapsed since 2004, the EU has even more noisily laid claim to its status as what Tony Blair liked to call "a world superpower", capable of standing on the world stage as an equal of the US. Anyone who witnessed the dismal showing at Thursday's press conference of the High Representative, which would scarcely have passed muster at a board meeting of the Hertfordshire Health Authority, might well cringe at the thought.

There are few superpower ambitions.

There is a EU ambition to pull its weight in times of crisis. A harmonised response force would go a long way towards fulfilling this ambition.

Alas, the anti-EU crowd is allergic to establishing any means for a common EU defense or foreign policy. To be able to act as decisively as the US must remain a future ambition.



But it is one or the other, Furunculus: either one is in favour of granting the EU means to act decisively, or one is not. And in the latter case, it is most unfitting to then deride the EU for lacking these means.

[Kralizec]

However, there is one caveat: Lisbon enabled the EU to subscribe to arbitration by the ECHR. The EU is since a month a legal entity of its own (although many people presumed, most notably those against the EU, that it had been so for ages). Together with all the member states, the EU is now directly bound by the ECHR.
This is one of the great aspects of Lisbon: the EU is now bound directly by legal precedent of the European Court for Human Rights.

Some MEP's asked questions to the commission about that. I don't know if they're answered yet, but the answer seems pretty clear to me.
The Lisbon Treaty says that the EU will accede to the ECHR. That means that acts and decisions of the Union can be brought before the ECHR court. It does not mean that the EU will in enforce ECHR decisions directed against countries wich happen to be member states of the EU. The Lisbon treaty itself explicitly says that the EU's accession to the ECHR will not give the EU more authority than it has according to the Lisbon treaty itself.

[Furunculus]

i'm not so fussed about the EU's involvement in, or commitment to, the ECHR, more that we are signed up to the ECHR at all.

[Meneldil]

as above, and no, while not totally alien many continental countries do not adhere to fundamental legal principles as applied in britain, i.e. trial by jury, common law, presumption of innocence, etc.

:laug h4:

(Where's Tribsey when you need him?)

[Furunculus]

(Where's Tribsey when you need him?)

why don't you take a pop yourself, go on, it can't be that hard if its that ridiculous.............. no really, fill your boots.

if you have some objection over the presumption of innocence, then yes i know, there is a somewhat equivalent recognition in many civil law systems (its in the link i provided after all), but the differences between legal systems are manifest and significant to the point where I am uncomfortable having a mixed-system judiciary acting as final arbiter of sections of British law.

so, crack on, lets hope you can justify those smileys with a witty riposte otherwise you'll look quite foolish, tribesman often did at any rate.

p.s. there are some clues here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...postcount=1029

[Furunculus]

interesting article on possible eu policy to expel countries that leave the Euro:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...escalates.html

ECB prepares legal ground for euro rupture as Greek crisis escalates
Fears of a euro break-up have reached the point where the European Central Bank feels compelled to issue a legal analysis of what would happen if a country tried to leave monetary union.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 5:12PM GMT 17 Jan 2010

“Recent developments have, perhaps, increased the risk of secession (however modestly), as well as the urgency of addressing it as a possible scenario,” said the document, entitled Withdrawal and expulsion from the EU and EMU: some reflections.

The author makes a string of vaulting, Jesuitical, and mischievous claims, as EU lawyers often do. Half a century of ever-closer union has created a “new legal order” that transcends a “largely obsolete concept of sovereignty” and imposes a “permanent limitation” on the states’ rights.

Those who suspect that European Court has the power pretensions of the Medieval Papacy will find plenty to validate their fears in this astonishing text.

Crucially, he argues that eurozone exit entails expulsion from the European Union as well. All EU members must take part in EMU (except Britain and Denmark, with opt-outs).

This is a warning shot for Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain. If they fail to marshal public support for draconian austerity, they risk being cast into Icelandic oblivion. Or for Greece, back into the clammy embrace of Asia Minor.

ECB chief Jean-Claude Trichet upped the ante, warning that the bank would not bend its collateral rules to support Greek debt. “No state can expect any special treatment,” he said. He might as well daub a death’s cross on the door of Greece’s debt management office.

This euro-brinkmanship must be unnerving for the Hellenic Socialists (PASOK). Last week’s €1.6bn (£1.4bn) auction of Greek debt did not go well. The interest rate on six-month notes rose to 1.38pc, compared to 0.59pc a month ago. The yield on 10-year bonds has touched 6pc, the spreads ballooning to 270 basis points above German Bunds.

Greece cannot afford such a premium for long. The country must raise €54bn this year – front-loaded in the first half. Unless the spreads fall sharply, the deficit cannot be cut from 12.7pc of GDP to 3pc of GDP within three years. As Moody’s put it, Greece (and Portugal) faces the risk of “slow death” from rising interest costs.

Stephen Jen from BlueGold Capital said the design flaws of monetary union are becoming clearer. “I don’t believe Euroland will break up: too much political capital has been spent in the past half century for Euroland to allow an outright breakage. However, severe 'stress-fractures’ are quite likely in the years ahead.”

As Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain (PIIGS) slide into deflation, their “real” interest rates will rise even higher. “It is tantamount to hiking rates in the already weak PIIGS,” he said. This is the crux. ECB policy will become “pro-cyclical”, too tight for the South, too loose for the North.

The City view is that the North-South split may cause trouble, but that there will always be a bail-out to prevent a domino effect. “If a rescue turns out to be necessary, a rescue will be mounted,” said Marco Annunziata from Unicredit.

It comes down to a bet that Berlin will do for Club Med what it did for East Germany: subsidise forever. It is a judgement on whether EMU is the binding coin of sacred solidarity, or just a fixed exchange rate system like others before it.

Politics will decide, and in Greece it is already proving messy as teams of “inspectors” ruffle feathers. The Orthodox LAOS party is not happy that an EU crew dared to demand an accounting from the colonels. “The Ministry of Defence is sacrosanct,” it said.

Greece alone in Western Europe treats the military budget as a state secret. Rating agencies guess it is a ruinous 5pc of GDP. Does the country really need 1,700 battle tanks, 420 combat jets, and eight submarines? To fight NATO ally Turkey? Merely to pose the question is to enter dangerous waters.

Who knows what the IMF surveillance team made of their mission in Athens. The Fund’s formula for boom-bust countries that squander their competitiveness is to retrench AND devalue. But devaluation is ruled out. Greece must take the pain, without the cure.

The policy is conceptually foolish and arguably cynical. It is to bleed a society in order to uphold the ideology of the European Project. Greece’s national debt will be 120pc of GDP this year. S&P says it will reach 138pc by 2012. A fiscal squeeze – without any offsetting monetary or exchange stimulus – will cause tax revenues to collapse. Debt will rise higher on a shrinking economic base.

Even if Greece can cut wages without setting off mass protest, it lacks the open economy and export sector that may yet save Ireland in similar circumstances. Greece is caught in a textbook deflation trap.

Labour minister Andreas Loverdos says unemployment would reach a million this year – or 22pc, equal to 30m in the US. He broadcast the fact with a hint of menace, as if he wanted Europe to squirm. Two can play brinkmanship.

have fun with that greece and portugal!

[Kralizec]

Well, to point out one thing...

You argue that presumption of innocence does not exist in all continental countries.
A few posts before that you complain that the ECHR dissaproves when the UK withholds social security for family of suspected terrorists.

[Beskar]

Well, to point out one thing...

You argue that presumption of innocence does not exist in all continental countries.
A few posts before that you complain that the ECHR dissaproves when the UK withholds social security for family of suspected terrorists.

Shhhh don't correct him, it would just hurt his nationalistic pride.

[al Roumi]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

oh i will, i will always fight to ensure a representative Britain.

whether i like the result or not.
have i not said in the past that i would accept (grudgingly) a federal EU with Britain a active and positive participant, if that is what the people wanted?

while the people are not given that choice, and especially so when the people appear to be opposed, then the result of pursuing the default course of ever-deeper-union is both un-representative and tyrannical.

but you guys won't have a problem with that; tyranny of the majority just being another slogan to shout whenever anyone threatens your post-national liberal* project. ;)

* in the modern nannying sense, rather the the more noble original.

1. yes. it's called political representation and i'm a big fan.

2. yes, because i trust that there is nothing so contentious that it would cause me to split with my 'people'. i have this trust because i am the product of our shared social and cultural history, just as are they.
yes, because i trust that there is nothing so contentious that it would cause me to split with my 'people'. i have this trust because i am the product of our shared social and cultural history, just as are they.

3. personally, i have sufficient faith in the strength of our social and cultural institutions that i am willing to trust my 'family' to act in a manner that i can abide. we are not some tin-pot continental country recently reprieved from dictatorship, nor brutalised by fifty years of ideological oppression, or have a recent history dotted with revolutions. we have been free and represented for 350 years, there is no need for proportional representation to disallow tyrants and demagogues from the levers of power.

Furunculus, are you by any chance an idealist?

You look increasingly like an anarchist for the total democracy you seem to desire.

I think you are also shaky on the "free and represented for 350 years", I would entreat you to find out more on who was represented and who was free -and dare I say at the expense of whom, during these glorious 350 years.

You might find the odd "oppressed mass" or two, both in the UK and overseas.

But never mind, we're a boiler-plate post-colonialist only-recently-relegated superpower, still "punching above our weight", right?

[Furunculus]

You argue that presumption of innocence does not exist in all continental countries.
A few posts before that you complain that the ECHR dissaproves when the UK withholds social security for family of suspected terrorists.

two points:

i pointed out* the presumption of innocence thing (along with other points such as common{adversarial}/civil{inquisitorial} law systems and trial by jury) to point out the differences in legal systems, a fact that makes a european court less able to dispense british justice, not because it was better (i stated as much in the same thread).

i also stated in the iceland thread** that i have no objections to anti-terror law and understand it sometimes needs to go outside what is acceptable for civil society, but i object when it is badly drafted and can be misused for 'civilian' purposes, so there is no incompatibility between the general presumption of innocence and the extraordinary measure taken to stop terror funding.

any more?

Shhhh don't correct him, it would just hurt his nationalistic pride.

anything to add, or still just cheer-leading?




* https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...postcount=1035
** https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=99

[Furunculus]

Furunculus, are you by any chance an idealist?

You look increasingly like an anarchist for the total democracy you seem to desire.

I think you are also shaky on the "free and represented for 350 years", I would entreat you to find out more on who was represented and who was free -and dare I say at the expense of whom, during these glorious 350 years.
You might find the odd "oppressed mass" or two, both in the UK and overseas.

But never mind, we're a boiler-plate post-colonialist only-recently-relegated superpower, still "punching above our weight", right?

a little yes, because i believe we have a system worth fighting for.

not total democracy, just representative democracy.

you mean things weren't perfect back-in-the-day? gee wizz, would never have guessed! i think the record of a stable and plural civil society is pretty good in Britain relatively speaking, any complaints with that statement?

is there anything wrong with the statement you quote?

[al Roumi]

a little yes, because i believe we have a system worth fighting for.

not total democracy, just representative democracy.

you mean things weren't perfect back-in-the-day? gee wizz, would never have guessed! i think the record of a stable and plural civil society is pretty good in Britain relatively speaking, any complaints with that statement?

Aww man, I wish. I wish we, or anyone, had a truly representative democracy. I wish society was able to cope with such a thing! Frankly, wishing for proper democracy and representation is wishing for a utopian ideal, you might say as crazy as wishing for a working form of communism.

On what basis do you think elections are won? Issues and Manifestos? Emotions? Personalities? Marketing? What the media say? What the people who own the media want?

The elected representatives, according to what criteria are they put forwards? Impartiality? Suitability for the job? Internal party politics? Who they know? Who they pay off?

And what about the electorate? Do they have the first clue about the consequences of political and budgetary decisions? Is there any way they can be appropriately informed by a sensationalist, commercialised and news-as-entertainment media?

1 single example, look at the responses to the spending cuts requried by the recession: everyone says it is neccessary to cut government spending, but won't actually take the hit on Education, Health or anything else that they value! How helpfull is the "will of british people" then???

IMO you have to be a loony or a complete tosser to go into politics, but ultimately the poor buggers in office are faced with some seriously difficult decisions. At the best of times they will always p!ss someone off and ultimately those decisions will all snowball and they'll end up faced with an electorate who are bored with their face and voice, and want some other prat to talk ernestly to them!

As Churchill said: democracy is not the best form of government, but it is better than the alternatives (or something simmilar).

But don't for one second kid yourself that it's anything to be particularily proud of. It can only ever be "less bad" than something else.

[al Roumi]

With apologies to the esteemed Mods for this double post...

you mean things weren't perfect back-in-the-day? gee wizz, would never have guessed! i think the record of a stable and plural civil society is pretty good in Britain relatively speaking, any complaints with that statement?

How do you judge society to be stable and plural I wonder? Plural is an easier one to look at, so lets have a quick look at how inclusive Britain has been... this list is not by any means going to be definitive, but I'll try to bring out some important milestones or positive steps.

Suffrage in the United Kingdom was slowly changed over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries to allow universal suffrage through the use of the Reform Acts and the Representation of the People Acts.

Reform Act 1832 - extended voting rights to adult males who rented propertied land of a certain value, so allowing 1 in 7 males in the UK voting rights
Reform Act 1867 - enfranchised all male householders, so increasing male suffrage to the United Kingdom
Representation of the People Act 1884 - amended the Reform Act of 1867 so that it would apply equally to the countryside; this brought the voting population to 5,500,000, although 40% of males were still disenfranchised, whilst women could not vote
Representation of the People Act 1918 - the consequences of World War I persuaded the government to expand the right to vote, not only for the many men who fought in the war who were disenfranchised, but also for the women who helped in the factories and elsewhere as part of the war effort. Property restrictions for voting were lifted for men, who could vote at 21; however women's votes were given with these property restrictions, and were limited to those over 30 years old. This raised the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million with women making up 40% of the electorate. Seven percent of the electorate had more than one vote. The first election with this system was the United Kingdom general election, 1918
Representation of the People Act 1928 - this made women's voting rights equal with men, with voting possible at 21 with no property restrictions
Representation of the People Act 1948 - the act was passed to prevent plural voting
Representation of the People Act 1969 - extension of suffrage to those 18 and older

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

So, up untill 1928, only the upper/middle classes could vote -while 1832 saw only 1 in 7 of the male population with a vote. Up untill 1948, some people had more than 1 vote (e.g. extra votes for having a degree, owning a certain ammount of capital, owning properties in different constituencies etc), elections were literaly biased in the favour of the views of the few.

Just how is that open and plural?

is there anything wrong with the statement you quote?

Do you know what hubris is?

[Furunculus]

Aww man, I wish. I wish we, or anyone, had a truly representative democracy. I wish society was able to cope with such a thing! Frankly, wishing for proper democracy and representation is wishing for a utopian ideal, you might say as crazy as wishing for a working form of communism.

On what basis do you think elections are won? Issues and Manifestos? Emotions? Personalities? Marketing? What the media say? What the people who own the media want?

The elected representatives, according to what criteria are they put forwards? Impartiality? Suitability for the job? Internal party politics? Who they know? Who they pay off?

And what about the electorate? Do they have the first clue about the consequences of political and budgetary decisions? Is there any way they can be appropriately informed by a sensationalist, commercialised and news-as-entertainment media?

1 single example, look at the responses to the spending cuts requried by the recession: everyone says it is neccessary to cut government spending, but won't actually take the hit on Education, Health or anything else that they value! How helpfull is the "will of british people" then???

IMO you have to be a loony or a complete tosser to go into politics, but ultimately the poor buggers in office are faced with some seriously difficult decisions. At the best of times they will always p!ss someone off and ultimately those decisions will all snowball and they'll end up faced with an electorate who are bored with their face and voice, and want some other prat to talk ernestly to them!

As Churchill said: democracy is not the best form of government, but it is better than the alternatives (or something simmilar).

But don't for one second kid yourself that it's anything to be particularily proud of. It can only ever be "less bad" than something else.

there really isn't a useful response to this other than to say; no kidding.

i agree and concur that these are the problems faced, but that will not stop me advocating a political system that does its best to represent the will of the people, because the alternative is tyranny, and varying intermediate steps on the way to tyranny.

[Furunculus]

How do you judge society to be stable and plural I wonder? Plural is an easier one to look at, so lets have a quick look at how inclusive Britain has been... this list is not by any means going to be definitive, but I'll try to bring out some important milestones or positive steps.
So, up untill 1928, only the upper/middle classes could vote -while 1832 saw only 1 in 7 of the male population with a vote. Up untill 1948, some people had more than 1 vote (e.g. extra votes for having a degree, owning a certain ammount of capital, owning properties in different constituencies etc), elections were literaly biased in the favour of the views of the few.
Just how is that open and plural?



Do you know what hubris is?

you missed the "relatively" in my statement. as i inferred earlier; i recognise that human history evolved from cavemen with clubs rather than Elysium.

lol, yes, however the opposite is equally as damaging a trait, and i find it far more common in Britain.

[Subotan]

You might find the odd "oppressed mass" or two, both in the UK and overseas.

With one nation in particular enduring particular oppression. The British Empire was built upon the bones of millions of Indians.

[al Roumi]

i agree and concur that these are the problems faced, but that will not stop me advocating a political system that does its best to represent the will of the people.

Honestly, I find it hard to seperate what you advocate from anarchy or government by plebiscite.

Neither of which are at all guarantors of the stability you applaud. Stability has historicaly been maintained by the haves, and undermined by the have-nots (who would like to have, and thus have a jolly good -and unstable- upheaval during or as a result of their acquisition).

If the UK has been stable as you assert, its because it was definitley not a plural and open society. Historicaly, the UK gave little and selectively enough to dampen social upheaval and maintain the staus-quo for the haves.

The ruling parliaments of GB were cautious to learn from others' mistakes -as in the French revolution (which started as a power grab by middle class property owners, which GB celebrated as freedom from tyranny, and was co-opted by working class/artisans, which horrified the ruling class of GB).

[Kralizec]

two points:

i pointed out* the presumption of innocence thing (along with other points such as common{adversarial}/civil{inquisitorial} law systems and trial by jury) to point out the differences in legal systems, a fact that makes a european court less able to dispense british justice, not because it was better (i stated as much in the same thread).

i also stated in the iceland thread** that i have no objections to anti-terror law and understand it sometimes needs to go outside what is acceptable for civil society, but i object when it is badly drafted and can be misused for 'civilian' purposes, so there is no incompatibility between the general presumption of innocence and the extraordinary measure taken to stop terror funding.

As for incompatibility issues, the argument is not without merit but you're exaggerating it. Especially with the ECHR, wich is mostly concerned with results and not with the way the result has been achieved.

No objections to anti-terror law? Really?
I'm okay with putting terrorism suspects under surveillance. But punishing the relatives of people who've never been convicted in court?
Someone should not have to put up with gross violations of basic human rights just because it's beneficial for society, or just because the majority of people think it's acceptable to maltreat minorities or invididual persons.

Representative democracy, will of the people, etc. (paraphrased)

Tyranny of the majority is a logical consequense of blindly following the will of the people. Many people think that the protection wich minorities enjoy in western societies is due to our respective democracies, but that's not true. It's because of the synthesis between the concept of representative democracy and the concept of the rechtsstaat.

On another note, in earlier discussion about this you've argued in favour of your current system because it creates clear majorities and is practical in other respects as well. That's a valid argument, but a system that offers only 2 or 3 viable candidates doesn't do the best job possible of representing the will of the voter. Surely, somebody who is as passionate about the Will of the People as you should staunchly support proportional representation?

[Subotan]

I once heard direct democracy described rather brilliantly as the "Crack cocaine of democracy"

[Furunculus]

Honestly, I find it hard to seperate what you advocate from anarchy or government by plebiscite.

Neither of which are at all guarantors of the stability you applaud. Stability has historicaly been maintained by the haves, and undermined by the have-nots (who would like to have, and thus have a jolly good -and unstable- upheaval during or as a result of their acquisition).

If the UK has been stable as you assert, its because it was definitley not a plural and open society. Historicaly, the UK gave little and selectively enough to dampen social upheaval and maintain the staus-quo for the haves.

The ruling parliaments of GB were cautious to learn from others' mistakes -as in the French revolution (which started as a power grab by middle class property owners, which GB celebrated as freedom from tyranny, and was co-opted by working class/artisans, which horrified the ruling class of GB).

i fail to see why you think i have a thing for anarchy or direct democracy.

I am a fan of neither, i am in fact a fan of letting the government take the tough decisions that people (as a crowd) would always shout down. but for this to work the people have to be able to weigh the decision makers on the merits of their decisions and then cast a vote of approval or disproval at the next election. that is neither of the ideas which you suggest i hold.

Where my enthusiasm for representation comes from is when the system described above fails; i.e a consensus forms between the two poles of politics that a given policy is-the-way-forward and the disatisfaction of the voter is to be disregarded.

it is a contemptuousness of the voter that will only breed contempt from the voter for his political 'masters'.

and you can tell when this has happened in a stable polity like Britain because the poles of British politics no longer dominate the ballot sheet results.
examples of this include:
> both parties letting too many immigants into the country (particularly labour) which has resulted in 1,000,000 BNP votes at the last euro election. only now are senior Labour figures beginning to admit they made a mistake after 12 years of chaos.
> both parties holding a greater enthusiasm for ever-deeper-union than its electorate, and repeatedly lieing to the voters about each new level of integration that wasn't happening, thus do we have UKIP.

this is a failure to represent because there is no opportunity to punish a bad decision within the mainstream of politics, and thus do the les pleasant and less credible fringes flourish. if you can't kick out those who hold with decisions with which you disagree then you are not represented.

so please, control any urge to travel further down this intellectual dead-end about direct democracy or anarchy as the only end-result of being enthusiastic about representative democracy.



here's a clue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.