In this case however, a general election should be called ASAP, not least because (despite not being a minority government) more people voted for other parties combined than the current one that got in, but also because it is a government split down the middle due to this monumental bolloxing up of our future.
A General Election cannot be called before 2020. It's the law due to the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 brought in by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition to stop them losing power if the coalition fell apart.
The only way for there to be one is for a 2/3 majority of the whole house to pass a vote of no confidence. Unless the Tories are feeling particularly ballsy about winning the election, which to be honest I don't think they are being so divided, they won't call one. Even the Queen can't call one now, this is why the Labour infighting is so very pointless.
What we will see will be the same as Blair/Brown and before that Thatcher/Major, whenever the Conservatives decide on their candidate, who looks increasingly likely to be either Theresa May or Boris Johnson.
Usually the members of a party are asked to vote in a leader in time for the party conference, the rest of the public have no say, unless they join the party, for a small fee of course.
I see Jeremy Hunt on Radio 4 this morning talking about a second referendum effectively forming part of the GE 2020 campaign.
Reasonably high ranking minister, so I think this is the way the Conservatives are going to run it.
Death by committee, attempts at informal negotiation and general dithering until the election. One side will put it up as a manifesto pledge either way and then the party that is elected in will then be seen as exercising the will of the British people.
If Labour had either held together, or can get themselves together in time for 2020 I could see them returning to power with a remain pledge and therefore mandate if elected, sparing us from a second referendum and keeping us in the EU as we are.
Thus kicking the referendum result into the long grass without shoving up two fingers to the public, a lot of whom have openly regretted voting leave.
It says a lot that leave didn't, and still don't have any kind of plan for Brexit, this basically means that it falls to the government to do what is in the best interests of the British people, even if this ironically is against their will.
I think Angrytarg hit the nail on the head - because people need a face to stay interested, they do in practice vote because of the leader as well as because of the party, even though they're not supposed to be directly voting for them. Also, the leader tends to be the person you see most of during the campaign, so they have a big effect on their party's public image. So, in practice, it's generally expected that if the governing party changes its leader, they'll call another general election as soon as possible, although I don't know whether there's an official rule or not. Likewise, if a party loses an election, their leader almost always resigns as it's considered that the public have voted against him or her - that's what happened to Ed Miliband last time, for instance.
From what I ever hear about the results, the American system isn't that much better. Being able to "directly elect your leader" sounds much more democratic, but all it seems to mean in practice is that the President doesn't necessarily have the support of either House of government and if he doesn't he can't do anything much. The important thing is being able to elect the parliament - unless your country has an autocratic government where the leader really does have power independent of the rest of the parliament, and they aren't usually democracies.
I voted Remain partly out of sentiment, because I admired France for showing some backbone over the TTIP treaty when the American negotiators started demanding more and more concessions for nothing, while our own government were announcing to all and sundry that "they wanted this deal" and would agree to whatever it took to get it through. (What's it even for, anyway?)
In my opinion though, the great thing about the referendum being over is that I no longer need to know anything about the whole bewildering issue of the EU, because I won't have to do anything about it again any time soon.
Belongs in ten forward ... but then this is also about politics so ... ib4tl?
I've seen Americans mention American politics here many times.
I would have said the exact same thing if the thread was about Donald Trump, a man I thoroughly despise. Politics is a topic that is all too easy to devolve into a flame war, regardless of the country or government in question.
So, in practice, it's generally expected that if the governing party changes its leader, they'll call another general election as soon as possible, although I don't know whether there's an official rule or not.
When Brown succeeded Tony Blair in this fashion, there was a lot of complaint from both sides that it was undemocratic. There's no hard and fast rule to call a General Election, but it used to be a way to show the country had faith (or not) in the new leader. Brown was criticised at the time for having not called an early election in 2007 before the onset of the financial crisis, when it was deemed Labour could have won again. Had he done so, that would have been a further 5 years in government from that point forward which might have made a subsequent GE in 2012 very interesting.
From what I ever hear about the results, the American system isn't that much better. Being able to "directly elect your leader" sounds much more democratic, but all it seems to mean in practice is that the President doesn't necessarily have the support of either House of government and if he doesn't he can't do anything much. The important thing is being able to elect the parliament - unless your country has an autocratic government where the leader really does have power independent of the rest of the parliament, and they aren't usually democracies.
There's a very interesting article on the BBC News website which suggests that in actual fact the American's elect a monarch in the form of their president: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32741802
I voted Remain partly out of sentiment, because I admired France for showing some backbone over the TTIP treaty when the American negotiators started demanding more and more concessions for nothing, while our own government were announcing to all and sundry that "they wanted this deal" and would agree to whatever it took to get it through. (What's it even for, anyway?)
TTIP is rather complicated but it's basically a trade agreement between America and Europe. The reason the US wanted to keep the UK in Europe is that our Conservative government have a high chance of passing it when compared to other countries such as France. Allegedly they are getting parts of it anyway, such as the watering down of employment law which is why there have been riots in France recently.
One of the things it would allow would be for American companies to buy British companies that are currently owned by the state, and or to bid for contracts for the state. For instance an American company might be able to buy up certain medical services that make up part of the NHS and effectively privatise it by the backdoor. This would also create interesting Tax exemptions and loopholes which could mean that whatever your opinion on privatisation is, the money generated might not actually stay in the UK. (unlike if a UK company, like say Virgin, did the same) It also allows those US companies to then outsource their jobs in the UK to American Citizens. Employment rights are arguably stronger in the EU than they are in the US which could lead to a watering down of these as well.
The EU also has much stricter laws regarding things such as food and environmental safety. For example the EU doesn't allow GM food but the US does. The EU doesn't allow growth hormones to be used in cattle, the US does.
The main thing it also allows is for companies to sue governments based on their actions, for example a US tobacco company could sue the government over the smoking ban, if it lead to a loss of profits.
The US is basically pushing, through TTIP that Europe and effectively the rest of the world should adopt it's standards for doing things such as trade, banking etc. It's been described by some American and European commentators alike as a "bloodless invasion of sovereign states in Europe." Since it's being conducted largely in secret and the general public have no real say in it.
From what I ever hear about the results, the American system isn't that much better. Being able to "directly elect your leader" sounds much more democratic, but all it seems to mean in practice is that the President doesn't necessarily have the support of either House of government and if he doesn't he can't do anything much. The important thing is being able to elect the parliament - unless your country has an autocratic government where the leader really does have power independent of the rest of the parliament, and they aren't usually democracies.
There's a very interesting article on the BBC News website which suggests that in actual fact the American's elect a monarch in the form of their president: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32741802
There's just no way you can call the POTUS a monarch. If Obama was a monarch, he actually would have been able to accomplish something, instead of having the Republicans hold up a hand and say "No" everytime he tried to get legislation passed. I'll admit that he has made a number of executive orders, but when you have a Congress that takes pride in not doing it's job theta really no other alternative to get things done.
A few years ago they let the entire government shut down because they didn't agree with Obama and wouldn't pass a bill to fund the government unless it included a repeal of the only thing Obama actually has managed to get done. I was a reservist at the time, and the really shocking thing is that military reserve units did not receive any training during that period. My unit was scheduled to have a three or four day field training exercise that month, it was canceled. All because politicians on the right refuse to do their job.
From what I ever hear about the results, the American system isn't that much better. Being able to "directly elect your leader" sounds much more democratic, but all it seems to mean in practice is that the President doesn't necessarily have the support of either House of government and if he doesn't he can't do anything much. The important thing is being able to elect the parliament - unless your country has an autocratic government where the leader really does have power independent of the rest of the parliament, and they aren't usually democracies.
There's a very interesting article on the BBC News website which suggests that in actual fact the American's elect a monarch in the form of their president: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32741802
There's just no way you can call the POTUS a monarch. If Obama was a monarch, he actually would have been able to accomplish something, instead of having the Republicans hold up a hand and say "No" everytime he tried to get legislation passed. I'll admit that he has made a number of executive orders, but when you have a Congress that takes pride in not doing it's job theta really no other alternative to get things done.
A few years ago they let the entire government shut down because they didn't agree with Obama and wouldn't pass a bill to fund the government unless it included a repeal of the only thing Obama actually has managed to get done. I was a reservist at the time, and the really shocking thing is that military reserve units did not receive any training during that period. My unit was scheduled to have a three or four day field training exercise that month, it was canceled. All because politicians on the right refuse to do their job.
I think you vastly overestimate the power of a monarch. If the Queen wished to exercise any of her powers (as few as those already are) the reaction of Government would be 'lol wat, nar' before getting on with business as usual. Any and all of her functions can be carried out by the Government with no need for a Head of State in the first place.
The difference between our countries is that we know our HoS is ceremonial wearer of silly hats who is of no consequence to our country. In yours the Hos is expected to actually use their power occasionally and the situation with your houses and the balance of power within those houses blocks anything effective from being done.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
From what I ever hear about the results, the American system isn't that much better. Being able to "directly elect your leader" sounds much more democratic, but all it seems to mean in practice is that the President doesn't necessarily have the support of either House of government and if he doesn't he can't do anything much. The important thing is being able to elect the parliament - unless your country has an autocratic government where the leader really does have power independent of the rest of the parliament, and they aren't usually democracies.
There's a very interesting article on the BBC News website which suggests that in actual fact the American's elect a monarch in the form of their president: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32741802
There's just no way you can call the POTUS a monarch. If Obama was a monarch, he actually would have been able to accomplish something, instead of having the Republicans hold up a hand and say "No" everytime he tried to get legislation passed. I'll admit that he has made a number of executive orders, but when you have a Congress that takes pride in not doing it's job theta really no other alternative to get things done.
A few years ago they let the entire government shut down because they didn't agree with Obama and wouldn't pass a bill to fund the government unless it included a repeal of the only thing Obama actually has managed to get done. I was a reservist at the time, and the really shocking thing is that military reserve units did not receive any training during that period. My unit was scheduled to have a three or four day field training exercise that month, it was canceled. All because politicians on the right refuse to do their job.
I think you vastly overestimate the power of a monarch. If the Queen wished to exercise any of her powers (as few as those already are) the reaction of Government would be 'lol wat, nar' before getting on with business as usual. Any and all of her functions can be carried out by the Government with no need for a Head of State in the first place.
The difference between our countries is that we know our HoS is ceremonial wearer of silly hats who is of no consequence to our country. In yours the Hos is expected to actually use their power occasionally and the situation with your houses and the balance of power within those houses blocks anything effective from being done.
My apologies, the same Republicans that refuse to do their job are also fond of calling Obama a dictator, so when I saw the suggestion that he was a monarch that's the version that jumped to mind, not the essentially powerless figure head that exists now.
I would argue though that the POTUS has more power than the Royal Family does now, as the office comes with veto power, and all military actions are ultimately approved by the POTUS.
From what I ever hear about the results, the American system isn't that much better. Being able to "directly elect your leader" sounds much more democratic, but all it seems to mean in practice is that the President doesn't necessarily have the support of either House of government and if he doesn't he can't do anything much. The important thing is being able to elect the parliament - unless your country has an autocratic government where the leader really does have power independent of the rest of the parliament, and they aren't usually democracies.
There's a very interesting article on the BBC News website which suggests that in actual fact the American's elect a monarch in the form of their president: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32741802
There's just no way you can call the POTUS a monarch. If Obama was a monarch, he actually would have been able to accomplish something, instead of having the Republicans hold up a hand and say "No" everytime he tried to get legislation passed. I'll admit that he has made a number of executive orders, but when you have a Congress that takes pride in not doing it's job theta really no other alternative to get things done.
A few years ago they let the entire government shut down because they didn't agree with Obama and wouldn't pass a bill to fund the government unless it included a repeal of the only thing Obama actually has managed to get done. I was a reservist at the time, and the really shocking thing is that military reserve units did not receive any training during that period. My unit was scheduled to have a three or four day field training exercise that month, it was canceled. All because politicians on the right refuse to do their job.
I think you vastly overestimate the power of a monarch. If the Queen wished to exercise any of her powers (as few as those already are) the reaction of Government would be 'lol wat, nar' before getting on with business as usual. Any and all of her functions can be carried out by the Government with no need for a Head of State in the first place.
The difference between our countries is that we know our HoS is ceremonial wearer of silly hats who is of no consequence to our country. In yours the Hos is expected to actually use their power occasionally and the situation with your houses and the balance of power within those houses blocks anything effective from being done.
My apologies, the same Republicans that refuse to do their job are also fond of calling Obama a dictator, so when I saw the suggestion that he was a monarch that's the version that jumped to mind, not the essentially powerless figure head that exists now.
I would argue though that the POTUS has more power than the Royal Family does now, as the office comes with veto power, and all military actions are ultimately approved by the POTUS.
Oh there are monarchies that exist now but they're also mainly theocracies, most constitutional monarchies are parliamentary democracies in practice.
I say in practice because the Queen technically has the same veto powers and is commander in chief and all that, but only on the proviso she never tries to exercise those rights.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
From what I ever hear about the results, the American system isn't that much better. Being able to "directly elect your leader" sounds much more democratic, but all it seems to mean in practice is that the President doesn't necessarily have the support of either House of government and if he doesn't he can't do anything much. The important thing is being able to elect the parliament - unless your country has an autocratic government where the leader really does have power independent of the rest of the parliament, and they aren't usually democracies.
There's a very interesting article on the BBC News website which suggests that in actual fact the American's elect a monarch in the form of their president: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32741802
There's just no way you can call the POTUS a monarch. If Obama was a monarch, he actually would have been able to accomplish something, instead of having the Republicans hold up a hand and say "No" everytime he tried to get legislation passed. I'll admit that he has made a number of executive orders, but when you have a Congress that takes pride in not doing it's job theta really no other alternative to get things done.
A few years ago they let the entire government shut down because they didn't agree with Obama and wouldn't pass a bill to fund the government unless it included a repeal of the only thing Obama actually has managed to get done. I was a reservist at the time, and the really shocking thing is that military reserve units did not receive any training during that period. My unit was scheduled to have a three or four day field training exercise that month, it was canceled. All because politicians on the right refuse to do their job.
I think you vastly overestimate the power of a monarch. If the Queen wished to exercise any of her powers (as few as those already are) the reaction of Government would be 'lol wat, nar' before getting on with business as usual. Any and all of her functions can be carried out by the Government with no need for a Head of State in the first place.
The difference between our countries is that we know our HoS is ceremonial wearer of silly hats who is of no consequence to our country. In yours the Hos is expected to actually use their power occasionally and the situation with your houses and the balance of power within those houses blocks anything effective from being done.
My apologies, the same Republicans that refuse to do their job are also fond of calling Obama a dictator, so when I saw the suggestion that he was a monarch that's the version that jumped to mind, not the essentially powerless figure head that exists now.
I would argue though that the POTUS has more power than the Royal Family does now, as the office comes with veto power, and all military actions are ultimately approved by the POTUS.
As somebody who is from England, I do feel that this is a problem if the POTUS is from one party and the house and senate the other, they have major issues getting anything done, of course they can also stop the POTUS doing stupid things.
The real problem is whatever democracy you live in, the likes of the Republican Party and Conserviatives WILL do it purely for political reasons and they will TRIBBLE the majority of the electorate over for the very rich minority and their own personal gain, think Cameron and this vote in the first place, shouldn't have happened but Cameron was more interested in his own personal legacy and trying to unite the Conservative.
With regards to a third of the total British population (52% of the British electorate that voted) voting to leave, the French are much more xenophobic (not all of the French) alot of the French want to leave the EU, even N.A.T.O (Which I don't believe is the case in the UK), but the French government wouldn't do that, unless its neccessary. as it is a risky gambit (think Cameron).
I blame politicians at all levels, all over the politocal spectrum in europe and the UK for being arrogant, feckless and self serving, the media for not stating all the positives and scaremongering which dosen't work.
Since we're all having a tidy little run down of consevratives/republicans (because God knows all the other politicians are such truthful and self-sacrificing individuals) now would be a good time to close this down.
ALL politicians are evil, immoral, self-serving TRIBBLE-holes or will be by the time they retire (because nobody thought term limits would be a good idea) some more then others of course but pinning all of a governments/countries problems on one group is naive and just proves your the kind of mindless automaton that keep these kinds of stupid divisions and childish fighting popular in modern politics. They just put on a show for the population but in the end they're all stealing the same money, making the same backroom deals, smoking the same crack and nailing the same prostitutes and they don't give a TRIBBLE about you. Welcome to politics.
Since we're all having a tidy little run down of consevratives/republicans (because God knows all the other politicians are such truthful and self-sacrificing individuals) now would be a good time to close this down.
ALL politicians are evil, immoral, self-serving ****-holes or will be by the time they retire (because nobody thought term limits would be a good idea) some more then others of course but pinning all of a governments/countries problems on one group is naive and just proves your the kind of mindless automaton that keep these kinds of stupid divisions and childish fighting popular in modern politics. They just put on a show for the population but in the end they're all stealing the same money, making the same backroom deals, smoking the same crack and nailing the same prostitutes and they don't give a **** about you. Welcome to politics.
I'd just like to add that all other points aside I see this referendum as a win for democracy because despite the fact that most political and economic leaders were strongly campaigning to stay in the EU the population rose up and said "nope, we are the ones here with the power and we are making this decision for ourselves."
Half. Half the population. The other half said stay remeber.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
You're right, there are winners and losers. Because God knows I'm sure the remainers would've given a TRIBBLE about the leavers concerns about the EU. If they had at any point In the last forty years this referendum may have been averted. Food for thought.
It's not about who's right or wrong it's about having the freedom to choose at all. My country is about to celebrate July 4 which signifies our independence and freedom and it's a good thing to do I think. No matter what differences we may have, how great is it to live in a place where we are even allowed to express those differences at all?
The UK is in undiscovered country now, it's going to be interesting seeing how it all turns out.
Those 52% who voted leave, me included simply had enough of Europe
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
I'd just like to add that all other points aside I see this referendum as a win for democracy because despite the fact that most political and economic leaders were strongly campaigning to stay in the EU the population rose up and said "nope, we are the ones here with the power and we are making this decision for ourselves."
But they aren't though, that's not how government works, certainly not in the UK. The people haven't demonstrated any power, they haven't voted in a new government. They haven't changed who represents them. They haven't even got a plan of action.
The Prime Minister is moving aside, but there will no be no General Election called to replace him, the only people that get to choose who does are the politicians, not a public vote like for POTUS. Not for four more long years.
The only people with the power to actually take the next step to take us out of the European Union are the politicians. Who can all veto it if they so choose and they probably will. Then our unelected upper house will have a say and probably strike it down in the unlikely event it makes it through the commons. The entire exercise is meaningless but you and others talk about it like it's the Boston Tea Party.
Explain to me how that is a "victory for democracy"? People would have achieved more staying at home and voting on the next reality TV show than they did last week.
You're right, there are winners and losers. Because God knows I'm sure the remainers would've given a **** about the leavers concerns about the EU. If they had at any point In the last forty years this referendum may have been averted. Food for thought.
You're wrong on that, the referendum could never have been avoided. Like any form of politics and government there will always be people who disagree with how it's run and think they could run things better.
The main "concern" that leavers had was about "immigration" and several people have come out and said that it was to "keep out the Muslims" not unlike Trump's current dogma over in the US.
Before we even joined the EU people were putting up signs that read "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish". How short the memories of people are and now we're out people are putting them back up again, only this time with slightly different wording.
Now we have signs up telling immigrants to "go home" (putting it mildly) and people of colour, foreign sounding accents or who dress differently are being beaten up in the street, the one thing the referendum did achieve is that it's legitimised this behaviour serving as a warning to the rest of the world. That's not "expressing differences" by any stretch of the imagination.
The irony is that the huge amount of money we spent on the referendum could have been better spent on fixing the actual problems with this country, controlling the rent market, building more homes and giving people job security and decent pay.
All of which are and always have been controlled by HMG, not the EU not "immigration" and not "refugees" all of which will now be made worse as the value of the pound has declined sharply which will mean greater government cuts and tax rises and a return to unemployment as companies have already sought to leave the UK.
Again, such a great victory, just like king Pyrrhus of Epirus...
Since we are discussing politics, I have something I've been trying to figure out for awhile now, and I wonder if one of you could help me. On most issues I consider myself far left progressive, except for guns, an issue that on some days I land to the right of some Republicans on. What do I call myself? A progressive gun nut? Sounds like an oxymoron, lol.
I'd just like to add that all other points aside I see this referendum as a win for democracy because despite the fact that most political and economic leaders were strongly campaigning to stay in the EU the population rose up and said "nope, we are the ones here with the power and we are making this decision for ourselves."
But they aren't though, that's not how government works, certainly not in the UK. The people haven't demonstrated any power, they haven't voted in a new government. They haven't changed who represents them. They haven't even got a plan of action.
The Prime Minister is moving aside, but there will no be no General Election called to replace him, the only people that get to choose who does are the politicians, not a public vote like for POTUS. Not for four more long years.
The only people with the power to actually take the next step to take us out of the European Union are the politicians. Who can all veto it if they so choose and they probably will. Then our unelected upper house will have a say and probably strike it down in the unlikely event it makes it through the commons. The entire exercise is meaningless but you and others talk about it like it's the Boston Tea Party.
Explain to me how that is a "victory for democracy"? People would have achieved more staying at home and voting on the next reality TV show than they did last week.
You're right, there are winners and losers. Because God knows I'm sure the remainers would've given a **** about the leavers concerns about the EU. If they had at any point In the last forty years this referendum may have been averted. Food for thought.
You're wrong on that, the referendum could never have been avoided. Like any form of politics and government there will always be people who disagree with how it's run and think they could run things better.
The main "concern" that leavers had was about "immigration" and several people have come out and said that it was to "keep out the Muslims" not unlike Trump's current dogma over in the US.
Before we even joined the EU people were putting up signs that read "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish". How short the memories of people are and now we're out people are putting them back up again, only this time with slightly different wording.
Now we have signs up telling immigrants to "go home" (putting it mildly) and people of colour, foreign sounding accents or who dress differently are being beaten up in the street, the one thing the referendum did achieve is that it's legitimised this behaviour serving as a warning to the rest of the world. That's not "expressing differences" by any stretch of the imagination.
The irony is that the huge amount of money we spent on the referendum could have been better spent on fixing the actual problems with this country, controlling the rent market, building more homes and giving people job security and decent pay.
All of which are and always have been controlled by HMG, not the EU not "immigration" and not "refugees" all of which will now be made worse as the value of the pound has declined sharply which will mean greater government cuts and tax rises and a return to unemployment as companies have already sought to leave the UK.
Again, such a great victory, just like king Pyrrhus of Epirus...
"Another victory like that and we are finished"
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
You're right, there are winners and losers. Because God knows I'm sure the remainers would've given a **** about the leavers concerns about the EU. If they had at any point In the last forty years this referendum may have been averted. Food for thought.
Yes. Yes they would. Nobody is happy with the EU. Nobody. You do realise there were negotiations prior to the vote? And that there will be ones after. Any legitimate concerns of 'leave' were being addressed. But their campaign was built on a bedrock of lies and mistruths. It's not democracy when there can be no informed opinion.
Since we are discussing politics, I have something I've been trying to figure out for awhile now, and I wonder if one of you could help me. On most issues I consider myself far left progressive, except for guns, an issue that on some days I land to the right of some Republicans on. What do I call myself? A progressive gun nut? Sounds like an oxymoron, lol.
Gun control isn't a left / right issue. It's an authoritarian / libertarian issue. The political compass has a north and south as well as an east and west. In general the right will be libertarian on gun control but authoritarian on funding the military (for instance) whereas the left would be libertarian on drug control but authoritarian on taxes for free health care.
It's entirely possible to be economically or socially left or right and favouring differing amounts of state control over different issues.
For instance, in the US, the right is heavily libertarian towards business, the rights for companies to own any sector of the economy is paramount. Hence privatised healthcare or energy distributors. They are strongly against government interference in the free market in terms of any regulation or legislation. But on the subject of the military they are authoritarian. It's is a nation wide military, it is not federal, it's under the direct oversight of the government. It is not open to private militias and it is funded directly through taxes.
Generally people are either left or right but the amount they identify with libertarianism or authoritarianism varies on different issues.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
(...) It's not democracy when there can be no informed opinion.
(...)
I find it hard to wrap the head around this point. Everybody is able to form a informed opinion these days. One is not dependant to take the parties' words for granted. It is entirely possible to pick up the topics and do the research, free information is available everywhere. Granted, sometimes it is difficult to get through to primary sources, for instance the bulk majority of scientific studies is locked behind commercial services which I understand but which is also fatal for the expert-layperson dialogue and people's understanding and usage of scientific studies. But the point is, if one takes the parties word for something (and a political party is by it's very nature highly biased in their view, it's a group driven by a specific interest) one cannot speak of a informed decision. But it is still so very covnenient to just cheer for someone telling nonsense on a podium, despite the cheeree (?) might not even comprehend the issue.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
(...) It's not democracy when there can be no informed opinion.
(...)
I find it hard to wrap the head around this point. Everybody is able to form a informed opinion these days. One is not dependant to take the parties' words for granted. It is entirely possible to pick up the topics and do the research, free information is available everywhere. Granted, sometimes it is difficult to get through to primary sources, for instance the bulk majority of scientific studies is locked behind commercial services which I understand but which is also fatal for the expert-layperson dialogue and people's understanding and usage of scientific studies. But the point is, if one takes the parties word for something (and a political party is by it's very nature highly biased in their view, it's a group driven by a specific interest) one cannot speak of a informed decision. But it is still so very covnenient to just cheer for someone telling nonsense on a podium, despite the cheeree (?) might not even comprehend the issue.
This is what I find alarming about modern political campaigns. It is so easy to fact check these extra ordinary claims via Google/Bing etc. It's also quite funny that in the hours and subsequent days since we voted for #brexit people have been heavily Googling the EU and what it means that we should leave.
Surely this is something that people should have done, I dunno, BEFORE going out and voting?
There was a letter in the Times this morning from a person who voted leave, not because he actually wanted to leave, but because he thought it would strengthen Britain's position in the EU, the Pound and so on.
The thing is as we are seeing with Trump and various other leaders throughout history, invoke a little bit of nationalism wave a few flags and people will vote for you no matter what else you say.
Since we are discussing politics, I have something I've been trying to figure out for awhile now, and I wonder if one of you could help me. On most issues I consider myself far left progressive, except for guns, an issue that on some days I land to the right of some Republicans on. What do I call myself? A progressive gun nut? Sounds like an oxymoron, lol.
Gun control isn't a left / right issue. It's an authoritarian / libertarian issue. The political compass has a north and south as well as an east and west. In general the right will be libertarian on gun control but authoritarian on funding the military (for instance) whereas the left would be libertarian on drug control but authoritarian on taxes for free health care.
It's entirely possible to be economically or socially left or right and favouring differing amounts of state control over different issues.
For instance, in the US, the right is heavily libertarian towards business, the rights for companies to own any sector of the economy is paramount. Hence privatised healthcare or energy distributors. They are strongly against government interference in the free market in terms of any regulation or legislation. But on the subject of the military they are authoritarian. It's is a nation wide military, it is not federal, it's under the direct oversight of the government. It is not open to private militias and it is funded directly through taxes.
Generally people are either left or right but the amount they identify with libertarianism or authoritarianism varies on different issues.
I guess my thing is that there's a progressive satellite radio station I listen to, and everyone on there I'm nodding in agreement with everything they say ... until they start talking about how much they hate guns, at which point I have to turn the radio off. Media wise at least it just seems like everyone who considers themself a progressive is expected to hate guns.
Our problem here in the States is the mostly Two Party System that has developed over the last 200+ years.
It is in no way 'all-inclusive' of the actual population and has delved into the insane idea that Cooperation & Compromise are to be avoided at all costs.
<shrug>
Post edited by daveyny on
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Since we are discussing politics, I have something I've been trying to figure out for awhile now, and I wonder if one of you could help me. On most issues I consider myself far left progressive, except for guns, an issue that on some days I land to the right of some Republicans on. What do I call myself? A progressive gun nut? Sounds like an oxymoron, lol.
The thing I really don't understand is how the gun lobby shot down (no pun intended), a the sugestion to limit the availibility of guns to those on the terrorism watch list ?!?. Its madness.
The thing I really don't understand is how the gun lobby shot down (no pun intended), a the sugestion to limit the availibility of guns to those on the terrorism watch list ?!?. Its madness.
If I understand it correctly, the NRA (gun lobby) practically owns the republican party. Of course everything they want is to make money, but their affiliated party turns it into a matter of patriotism to own guns, always citing the 2nd amendment which says that in order to keep Britain from taking back their colonies, militias need to be kept and every citizen has the right to bear arms. From my arrogant Euro perspective it is sheer madness to cling to an outdated law like that, especially seeing what's at risk. I have no problem with recreational shooting in controlled environments, but guns aren't recreational tools or other hobby items. They're guns and those don't belong in any home (personal opinion). There's overwhelming evidence from any perspective it's possible to look at it (and some odd 90% of citizens are in favor of at least some form of governmental oversight), but the lobby pays their party and the party seems to make it a matter of principal. The only solution I think would be for a president to muster the courage to abolish the 2nd amendment. But that would be an unprecedented act and people are worried about such fundamental modifications to the constitution, officially. Inofficially it's, of course, lobby work.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
They don't want ANY gun control laws, because it might lead to even more stricter rules down the pike.
(even if it means going against the majority of what the American People think)
It's the "Slippery Slope" Theory and it's worked for that particular lobby for many a decade now.
<shrug>
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I don't agree with either side. Yes people should be able to own weapons, which types of guns should be legal and what types of requirements for owning them should depend upon the type. Simple small calliber guns for bird shooting or non-lethal home defense for example should be relatively easy to acquire while ones designed for hunting or as pure military weapons should require special licensing and training as well as background checks. I'm extremely conservative to the point of being libertarian but this makes perfect sense to me.
The law wasn't put in place to prevent England taking us back it was to prevent our government from becoming the same tyrannical TRIBBLE-holes because at any given time if they try to overstep their power we can go "nope" and forcibly take our country back. It's just another check and balance on the government's power and it's worked well so far. In the words of Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety."
As I pointed out earlier, anyone who trusts politicians is a moron of such epic proportions that I wonder if eugenics is actually such a bad idea.
Comments
A General Election cannot be called before 2020. It's the law due to the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 brought in by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition to stop them losing power if the coalition fell apart.
The only way for there to be one is for a 2/3 majority of the whole house to pass a vote of no confidence. Unless the Tories are feeling particularly ballsy about winning the election, which to be honest I don't think they are being so divided, they won't call one. Even the Queen can't call one now, this is why the Labour infighting is so very pointless.
What we will see will be the same as Blair/Brown and before that Thatcher/Major, whenever the Conservatives decide on their candidate, who looks increasingly likely to be either Theresa May or Boris Johnson.
Usually the members of a party are asked to vote in a leader in time for the party conference, the rest of the public have no say, unless they join the party, for a small fee of course.
I see Jeremy Hunt on Radio 4 this morning talking about a second referendum effectively forming part of the GE 2020 campaign.
Reasonably high ranking minister, so I think this is the way the Conservatives are going to run it.
Death by committee, attempts at informal negotiation and general dithering until the election. One side will put it up as a manifesto pledge either way and then the party that is elected in will then be seen as exercising the will of the British people.
If Labour had either held together, or can get themselves together in time for 2020 I could see them returning to power with a remain pledge and therefore mandate if elected, sparing us from a second referendum and keeping us in the EU as we are.
Thus kicking the referendum result into the long grass without shoving up two fingers to the public, a lot of whom have openly regretted voting leave.
It says a lot that leave didn't, and still don't have any kind of plan for Brexit, this basically means that it falls to the government to do what is in the best interests of the British people, even if this ironically is against their will.
From what I ever hear about the results, the American system isn't that much better. Being able to "directly elect your leader" sounds much more democratic, but all it seems to mean in practice is that the President doesn't necessarily have the support of either House of government and if he doesn't he can't do anything much. The important thing is being able to elect the parliament - unless your country has an autocratic government where the leader really does have power independent of the rest of the parliament, and they aren't usually democracies.
I voted Remain partly out of sentiment, because I admired France for showing some backbone over the TTIP treaty when the American negotiators started demanding more and more concessions for nothing, while our own government were announcing to all and sundry that "they wanted this deal" and would agree to whatever it took to get it through. (What's it even for, anyway?)
In my opinion though, the great thing about the referendum being over is that I no longer need to know anything about the whole bewildering issue of the EU, because I won't have to do anything about it again any time soon.
I've seen Americans mention American politics here many times.
I would have said the exact same thing if the thread was about Donald Trump, a man I thoroughly despise. Politics is a topic that is all too easy to devolve into a flame war, regardless of the country or government in question.
When Brown succeeded Tony Blair in this fashion, there was a lot of complaint from both sides that it was undemocratic. There's no hard and fast rule to call a General Election, but it used to be a way to show the country had faith (or not) in the new leader. Brown was criticised at the time for having not called an early election in 2007 before the onset of the financial crisis, when it was deemed Labour could have won again. Had he done so, that would have been a further 5 years in government from that point forward which might have made a subsequent GE in 2012 very interesting.
There's a very interesting article on the BBC News website which suggests that in actual fact the American's elect a monarch in the form of their president: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32741802
TTIP is rather complicated but it's basically a trade agreement between America and Europe. The reason the US wanted to keep the UK in Europe is that our Conservative government have a high chance of passing it when compared to other countries such as France. Allegedly they are getting parts of it anyway, such as the watering down of employment law which is why there have been riots in France recently.
One of the things it would allow would be for American companies to buy British companies that are currently owned by the state, and or to bid for contracts for the state. For instance an American company might be able to buy up certain medical services that make up part of the NHS and effectively privatise it by the backdoor. This would also create interesting Tax exemptions and loopholes which could mean that whatever your opinion on privatisation is, the money generated might not actually stay in the UK. (unlike if a UK company, like say Virgin, did the same) It also allows those US companies to then outsource their jobs in the UK to American Citizens. Employment rights are arguably stronger in the EU than they are in the US which could lead to a watering down of these as well.
The EU also has much stricter laws regarding things such as food and environmental safety. For example the EU doesn't allow GM food but the US does. The EU doesn't allow growth hormones to be used in cattle, the US does.
The main thing it also allows is for companies to sue governments based on their actions, for example a US tobacco company could sue the government over the smoking ban, if it lead to a loss of profits.
The US is basically pushing, through TTIP that Europe and effectively the rest of the world should adopt it's standards for doing things such as trade, banking etc. It's been described by some American and European commentators alike as a "bloodless invasion of sovereign states in Europe." Since it's being conducted largely in secret and the general public have no real say in it.
There's just no way you can call the POTUS a monarch. If Obama was a monarch, he actually would have been able to accomplish something, instead of having the Republicans hold up a hand and say "No" everytime he tried to get legislation passed. I'll admit that he has made a number of executive orders, but when you have a Congress that takes pride in not doing it's job theta really no other alternative to get things done.
A few years ago they let the entire government shut down because they didn't agree with Obama and wouldn't pass a bill to fund the government unless it included a repeal of the only thing Obama actually has managed to get done. I was a reservist at the time, and the really shocking thing is that military reserve units did not receive any training during that period. My unit was scheduled to have a three or four day field training exercise that month, it was canceled. All because politicians on the right refuse to do their job.
I think you vastly overestimate the power of a monarch. If the Queen wished to exercise any of her powers (as few as those already are) the reaction of Government would be 'lol wat, nar' before getting on with business as usual. Any and all of her functions can be carried out by the Government with no need for a Head of State in the first place.
The difference between our countries is that we know our HoS is ceremonial wearer of silly hats who is of no consequence to our country. In yours the Hos is expected to actually use their power occasionally and the situation with your houses and the balance of power within those houses blocks anything effective from being done.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
My apologies, the same Republicans that refuse to do their job are also fond of calling Obama a dictator, so when I saw the suggestion that he was a monarch that's the version that jumped to mind, not the essentially powerless figure head that exists now.
I would argue though that the POTUS has more power than the Royal Family does now, as the office comes with veto power, and all military actions are ultimately approved by the POTUS.
Oh there are monarchies that exist now but they're also mainly theocracies, most constitutional monarchies are parliamentary democracies in practice.
I say in practice because the Queen technically has the same veto powers and is commander in chief and all that, but only on the proviso she never tries to exercise those rights.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
As somebody who is from England, I do feel that this is a problem if the POTUS is from one party and the house and senate the other, they have major issues getting anything done, of course they can also stop the POTUS doing stupid things.
The real problem is whatever democracy you live in, the likes of the Republican Party and Conserviatives WILL do it purely for political reasons and they will TRIBBLE the majority of the electorate over for the very rich minority and their own personal gain, think Cameron and this vote in the first place, shouldn't have happened but Cameron was more interested in his own personal legacy and trying to unite the Conservative.
With regards to a third of the total British population (52% of the British electorate that voted) voting to leave, the French are much more xenophobic (not all of the French) alot of the French want to leave the EU, even N.A.T.O (Which I don't believe is the case in the UK), but the French government wouldn't do that, unless its neccessary. as it is a risky gambit (think Cameron).
I blame politicians at all levels, all over the politocal spectrum in europe and the UK for being arrogant, feckless and self serving, the media for not stating all the positives and scaremongering which dosen't work.
FYI! I voted remain.
ALL politicians are evil, immoral, self-serving TRIBBLE-holes or will be by the time they retire (because nobody thought term limits would be a good idea) some more then others of course but pinning all of a governments/countries problems on one group is naive and just proves your the kind of mindless automaton that keep these kinds of stupid divisions and childish fighting popular in modern politics. They just put on a show for the population but in the end they're all stealing the same money, making the same backroom deals, smoking the same crack and nailing the same prostitutes and they don't give a TRIBBLE about you. Welcome to politics.
More like 17%...
^^^This guy's got it.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It's not about who's right or wrong it's about having the freedom to choose at all. My country is about to celebrate July 4 which signifies our independence and freedom and it's a good thing to do I think. No matter what differences we may have, how great is it to live in a place where we are even allowed to express those differences at all?
Those 52% who voted leave, me included simply had enough of Europe
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
But they aren't though, that's not how government works, certainly not in the UK. The people haven't demonstrated any power, they haven't voted in a new government. They haven't changed who represents them. They haven't even got a plan of action.
The Prime Minister is moving aside, but there will no be no General Election called to replace him, the only people that get to choose who does are the politicians, not a public vote like for POTUS. Not for four more long years.
The only people with the power to actually take the next step to take us out of the European Union are the politicians. Who can all veto it if they so choose and they probably will. Then our unelected upper house will have a say and probably strike it down in the unlikely event it makes it through the commons. The entire exercise is meaningless but you and others talk about it like it's the Boston Tea Party.
Explain to me how that is a "victory for democracy"? People would have achieved more staying at home and voting on the next reality TV show than they did last week.
You're wrong on that, the referendum could never have been avoided. Like any form of politics and government there will always be people who disagree with how it's run and think they could run things better.
The main "concern" that leavers had was about "immigration" and several people have come out and said that it was to "keep out the Muslims" not unlike Trump's current dogma over in the US.
Before we even joined the EU people were putting up signs that read "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish". How short the memories of people are and now we're out people are putting them back up again, only this time with slightly different wording.
Now we have signs up telling immigrants to "go home" (putting it mildly) and people of colour, foreign sounding accents or who dress differently are being beaten up in the street, the one thing the referendum did achieve is that it's legitimised this behaviour serving as a warning to the rest of the world. That's not "expressing differences" by any stretch of the imagination.
The irony is that the huge amount of money we spent on the referendum could have been better spent on fixing the actual problems with this country, controlling the rent market, building more homes and giving people job security and decent pay.
All of which are and always have been controlled by HMG, not the EU not "immigration" and not "refugees" all of which will now be made worse as the value of the pound has declined sharply which will mean greater government cuts and tax rises and a return to unemployment as companies have already sought to leave the UK.
Again, such a great victory, just like king Pyrrhus of Epirus...
"Another victory like that and we are finished"
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
And yet not enough of a majority to form a government, but apparently enough to trigger the largest political shift in living memory.
Yes. Yes they would. Nobody is happy with the EU. Nobody. You do realise there were negotiations prior to the vote? And that there will be ones after. Any legitimate concerns of 'leave' were being addressed. But their campaign was built on a bedrock of lies and mistruths. It's not democracy when there can be no informed opinion.
Gun control isn't a left / right issue. It's an authoritarian / libertarian issue. The political compass has a north and south as well as an east and west. In general the right will be libertarian on gun control but authoritarian on funding the military (for instance) whereas the left would be libertarian on drug control but authoritarian on taxes for free health care.
It's entirely possible to be economically or socially left or right and favouring differing amounts of state control over different issues.
For instance, in the US, the right is heavily libertarian towards business, the rights for companies to own any sector of the economy is paramount. Hence privatised healthcare or energy distributors. They are strongly against government interference in the free market in terms of any regulation or legislation. But on the subject of the military they are authoritarian. It's is a nation wide military, it is not federal, it's under the direct oversight of the government. It is not open to private militias and it is funded directly through taxes.
Generally people are either left or right but the amount they identify with libertarianism or authoritarianism varies on different issues.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I find it hard to wrap the head around this point. Everybody is able to form a informed opinion these days. One is not dependant to take the parties' words for granted. It is entirely possible to pick up the topics and do the research, free information is available everywhere. Granted, sometimes it is difficult to get through to primary sources, for instance the bulk majority of scientific studies is locked behind commercial services which I understand but which is also fatal for the expert-layperson dialogue and people's understanding and usage of scientific studies. But the point is, if one takes the parties word for something (and a political party is by it's very nature highly biased in their view, it's a group driven by a specific interest) one cannot speak of a informed decision. But it is still so very covnenient to just cheer for someone telling nonsense on a podium, despite the cheeree (?) might not even comprehend the issue.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This is what I find alarming about modern political campaigns. It is so easy to fact check these extra ordinary claims via Google/Bing etc. It's also quite funny that in the hours and subsequent days since we voted for #brexit people have been heavily Googling the EU and what it means that we should leave.
Surely this is something that people should have done, I dunno, BEFORE going out and voting?
There was a letter in the Times this morning from a person who voted leave, not because he actually wanted to leave, but because he thought it would strengthen Britain's position in the EU, the Pound and so on.
The thing is as we are seeing with Trump and various other leaders throughout history, invoke a little bit of nationalism wave a few flags and people will vote for you no matter what else you say.
I guess my thing is that there's a progressive satellite radio station I listen to, and everyone on there I'm nodding in agreement with everything they say ... until they start talking about how much they hate guns, at which point I have to turn the radio off. Media wise at least it just seems like everyone who considers themself a progressive is expected to hate guns.
It is in no way 'all-inclusive' of the actual population and has delved into the insane idea that Cooperation & Compromise are to be avoided at all costs.
<shrug>
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
The thing I really don't understand is how the gun lobby shot down (no pun intended), a the sugestion to limit the availibility of guns to those on the terrorism watch list ?!?. Its madness.
If I understand it correctly, the NRA (gun lobby) practically owns the republican party. Of course everything they want is to make money, but their affiliated party turns it into a matter of patriotism to own guns, always citing the 2nd amendment which says that in order to keep Britain from taking back their colonies, militias need to be kept and every citizen has the right to bear arms. From my arrogant Euro perspective it is sheer madness to cling to an outdated law like that, especially seeing what's at risk. I have no problem with recreational shooting in controlled environments, but guns aren't recreational tools or other hobby items. They're guns and those don't belong in any home (personal opinion). There's overwhelming evidence from any perspective it's possible to look at it (and some odd 90% of citizens are in favor of at least some form of governmental oversight), but the lobby pays their party and the party seems to make it a matter of principal. The only solution I think would be for a president to muster the courage to abolish the 2nd amendment. But that would be an unprecedented act and people are worried about such fundamental modifications to the constitution, officially. Inofficially it's, of course, lobby work.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
They don't want ANY gun control laws, because it might lead to even more stricter rules down the pike.
(even if it means going against the majority of what the American People think)
It's the "Slippery Slope" Theory and it's worked for that particular lobby for many a decade now.
<shrug>
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
The law wasn't put in place to prevent England taking us back it was to prevent our government from becoming the same tyrannical TRIBBLE-holes because at any given time if they try to overstep their power we can go "nope" and forcibly take our country back. It's just another check and balance on the government's power and it's worked well so far. In the words of Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety."
As I pointed out earlier, anyone who trusts politicians is a moron of such epic proportions that I wonder if eugenics is actually such a bad idea.