Europe

[Furunculus]

Ok, which British people? I'm a British person and this particular judgment might very well be my will, so IMO we don't live under tyranny.
Well it is, just as long as the person you elect votes exactly as you will him to.

so, in your esteemed opinion, are we more likely to get a judicial opinion that better represents the will of the British people if the final court of arbitration is british judges, or some random collection of continentals?

because if you argue that it doesn't matter which you will find yourself on the wrong side of public opinion by a vast margin.

[al Roumi]

so, in your esteemed opinion, are we more likely to get a judicial opinion that better represents the will of the British people if the final court of arbitration is british judges, or some random collection of continentals?

because if you argue that it doesn't matter which you will find yourself on the wrong side of public opinion by a vast margin.

You are quite sold on this "will of the British people" thing aren't you?

Permit me a question or two (beyond the obvious How do you impartialy measure it?):

-Would you follow the "will of the British people" even if they disagreed with you?
-Would you follow the "will of the British people" even if you knew that what they wanted was impractical, flawed or dangerous?

Personaly I'm deeply suspicious of anyone purporting to follow the "will of the people", it's just populism. Firstly, It sounds to me like ridding a white rhino, secondly I'm concerned about the nut-job who would get on it -and exactly what scruples they do have.

Given the drivel in the media, can you actually trust the people it informs? I'm cautious at best.

[Subotan]

The "will of the people" is nice and vague enough to justify pretty much anything. And yet if we had followed it constantly, then we would never have legalised abortion, homosexuality, scrapped the death penalty etc.

so, in your esteemed opinion, are we more likely to get a judicial opinion that better represents the will of the British people if the final court of arbitration is british judges, or some random collection of continentals?

Seeing as how the legislation it is referring to is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, I'd say the latter.

because if you argue that it doesn't matter which you will find yourself on the wrong side of public opinion by a vast margin.

Silly me, having my own, well considered opinions. I guess I should just hoover up whatever is in the Daily Fail and believe that then.

[Furunculus]

The "will of the people" is nice and vague enough to justify pretty much anything. And yet if we had followed it constantly, then we would never have legalised abortion, homosexuality, scrapped the death penalty etc.

Seeing as how the legislation it is referring to is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, I'd say the latter.

Silly me, having my own, well considered opinions. I guess I should just hoover up whatever is in the Daily Fail and believe that then.

are you sure of that? i am not so sure because there is no evidence that britain would have acted differently were circumstances different.

you may get a shock when you realise that the majority of your compatriots disagree with you.

you can hold whatever opinion you wish, i just find it slightly tyrannical that you are willing to justify the imposition of your liberal (in the modern sense) opinion on every one else, whether they want it or not.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Fight the tyranny, Furunculus! That's two Britons on this very page who refuse to bow to the Will of the British People! Fight, fight and resist them - lest there be people who stand in the way of Britain's One and Indivisible Will!

[Furunculus]

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.

[Subotan]

are you sure of that? i am not so sure because there is no evidence that britain would have acted differently were circumstances different.

IIRC support of the death penalty is almost always high when it is abolished, and then gradually declines over time. I don't know about the others, to be fair.

you may get a shock when you realise that the majority of your compatriots disagree with you

Funnily enough, people always get a shock when I tell them I'm pro-EU. The very idea is alien to many of them, since they have been force-fed for years this concept of all-incompetent, all-useless Union.

you can hold whatever opinion you wish, i just find it slightly tyrannical that you are willing to justify the imposition of your liberal (in the modern sense) opinion on every one else, whether they want it or not.

Well, that's the great paradox of liberalism, isn't it? Is it illiberal to force other people to be liberal?

Fight the tyranny, Furunculus! That's two Britons on this very page who refuse to bow to the Will of the British People! Fight, fight and resist them - lest there be people who stand in the way of Britain's One and Indivisible Will!

England Prevails!

[Furunculus]

IIRC support of the death penalty is almost always high when it is abolished, and then gradually declines over time. I don't know about the others, to be fair.

Funnily enough, people always get a shock when I tell them I'm pro-EU. The very idea is alien to many of them, since they have been force-fed for years this concept of all-incompetent, all-useless Union.

Well, that's the great paradox of liberalism, isn't it? Is it illiberal to force other people to be liberal?

England Prevails!

i agree entirely that the death penalty is the exception here, only difference is that i have nothing against the death penalty if that's what the people want. i am equally happy to be without the death penalty if that is what the people wish. what is unhealthy is laws that do not have the agreement or respect of civil society.

as opposed to years of being fed pro-EU propaganda, that is different somehow?

it might be a paradox for modern liberalism, but that ain't my problem as i'm all about classical liberalism.

we usually do, you never know we might do this time too.

[Furunculus]

1. You are quite sold on this "will of the British people" thing aren't you?

2. Permit me a question or two (beyond the obvious How do you impartialy measure it?):
-Would you follow the "will of the British people" even if they disagreed with you?
-Would you follow the "will of the British people" even if you knew that what they wanted was impractical, flawed or dangerous?

3. Personaly I'm deeply suspicious of anyone purporting to follow the "will of the people", it's just populism. Firstly, It sounds to me like ridding a white rhino, secondly I'm concerned about the nut-job who would get on it -and exactly what scruples they do have.

4. Given the drivel in the media, can you actually trust the people it informs? I'm cautious at best.

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.

4. in Britain, those of over 18 years of age and sound mind are considered legally responsible, adults in short. i prefer to treat the adult population of britain as capable and responsible of acting in an adult manner............ and punishing those who fail to do so. treating people as infants for whom every action and thought must be proscibed and regulated inevitably infantilises that population.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.