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 an advisory referendum. It isn't legally binding. This was always the case no matter who won and was clearly spelled out in the parliamentary vote on the matter last year.
The current government accepts the will of the people, however David Cameron has resigned and someone else in the Conservative party will undoubtedly try to take it forward come October or possibly late September.
It is unlikely due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act that a General Election will be called, David Cameron has announced that he will step down, but no one new has been elected least of all Nigel Farage, the man who claimed victory and was seen as the face of the leave campaign who has to all intents and purposes put himself out of a job.
Interestingly, one of his many quotes of the campaign was that if the result had been 52-48 remain, he would have sought a second referendum himself so it seems a tad bit hypocritical of him and other Leave campaigners to say "that's not how democracy works"
In order to leave the EU, the UK has to repeal a number of laws, not least the European Communities Act which a number of members of the House of Commons have, today, vowed to oppose based on their own views or those of their constituents which is their right and responsibility as elected representatives. It also has to go through the House of Lords and ostensibly the Queen. Strangely, elected representatives often disagree with the population at large on certain issues, as do the HoL.
Constitutionally, whilst "the people have spoken" it is still for their elected representatives to decide what happens next. David Cameron won't pull the trigger, and it would be unwise for Johnson or Gove or whomever replaces him to do so without having formulated a plan, one which they admitted they did not have because they did not expect to win.
When you have are looking to persuade the House on a course of action, particularly one of monumental importance, it's a good idea to have a robust plan that can be scrutinized and debated in great detail as oddly, that's how government works.
In the mean time, we are still part of the EU and bound by all of it's rules and regulations and will be until the government of the day trigger Article 50 and at least two years have passed. Until that happens, 52-48 means absolutely nothing.
I voted remain but I also respect the results. Some people were dumb enough to vote but I also expect them to do what is best now for the country.
The leave camp had no plan and did not expect to win. There plan was to be in the single market without free movement, not having the EU laws that come with, no payment to the EU and being deluded about it. The EU will never allow it.
They already said they would not control/stop immigration from the EU as well which was one of the few key things for voters as well as the money that could be spent on the NHS (I did miss out the ability to control our own laws as well).
They also spoke of opening trade deals with others like india but the question is how long would it take to get those trade deals and I would assume it would have to be after we agreed the EU exit which would be two years.
Cameron never wanted to be the one to leave and also knew of the TRIBBLE storm that would hit the UK and which is why he left it to someone else since clearly they never had a proper plan for brexit.
If the leave camp can't come up with a good viable plan for the UK outside the EU then Parliament should discard it. Its not worth risking so many years of uncertainty and messing with peoples lives and jobs on a wim and most certainly on no plan.
If they come up with a solid plan that is achievable then they should push for article 50 get the negotiations out the way and then start our own trade deals.
We need a plan that won't wreck the country and the economy futher and won't put many jobs at risk. We need a sensible approach to this and that is what the people would expect and not to let the country sink based on the ambition of someone who just wanted to be PM.
People and the markets need certainty and need to know what is going on sooner rather then later so they can then make their future investment plans. Having the government do nothing and then waiting till September / October is not going to help. This should never be happening.
maybe because, despite a few patches of heat from CERTAIN posters...it has yet to devolve into a flaming cesspool from hell, so whoever moved it decided to leave it be for now
I don't know for sure, but I'm hearing that a lot of people are unhappy with threads about politics. What I'm proposing is that we report all political threads, just until we figure out what's going on, cause no one has a clue. And no one reports threads better than me, believe me. And when I'm elected supreme ruler of the universe, I'm going to build a wall between these forums and politics, and I'll make the politicians pay for it.
I voted remain but I also respect the results. Some people were dumb enough to vote but I also expect them to do what is best now for the country.
The leave camp had no plan and did not expect to win. There plan was to be in the single market without free movement, not having the EU laws that come with, no payment to the EU and being deluded about it. The EU will never allow it.
They already said they would not control/stop immigration from the EU as well which was one of the few key things for voters as well as the money that could be spent on the NHS (I did miss out the ability to control our own laws as well).
They also spoke of opening trade deals with others like india but the question is how long would it take to get those trade deals and I would assume it would have to be after we agreed the EU exit which would be two years.
Cameron never wanted to be the one to leave and also knew of the **** storm that would hit the UK and which is why he left it to someone else since clearly they never had a proper plan for brexit.
If the leave camp can't come up with a good viable plan for the UK outside the EU then Parliament should discard it. Its not worth risking so many years of uncertainty and messing with peoples lives and jobs on a wim and most certainly on no plan.
If they come up with a solid plan that is achievable then they should push for article 50 get the negotiations out the way and then start our own trade deals.
We need a plan that won't wreck the country and the economy futher and won't put many jobs at risk. We need a sensible approach to this and that is what the people would expect and not to let the country sink based on the ambition of someone who just wanted to be PM.
People and the markets need certainty and need to know what is going on sooner rather then later so they can then make their future investment plans. Having the government do nothing and then waiting till September / October is not going to help. This should never be happening.
This is why I expect that the new committee that Cameron announced yesterday will effectively kick it into the long grass until either the leave camp can come up with a sensible plan that isn't just pie in the sky or the public forgets about it and moves on. There's a phrase in politics "death by committee" and I think that's effectively what this is. Given the margin and the unelected nature of the new Prime Minister, it's a poisoned chalice. Whomever does make the call to invoke Article 50 will be taking the UK into uncharted waters, with the possibility of no return. That's a huge gamble that may or may not pay off.
Trading with the Commonwealth is a great idea, except that places like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India to name but a few are an extremely long way away especially by ship. Unlike the rest of Europe which is on our doorstep, both of which will have their costs, though now the costs for Europe will be higher.
It kinda reminds me of those relatives everyone has who will drive hundreds of miles to save a few pence on the price of bread rather than pay that little bit extra by buying from the corner shop.
The economy, currency and employment have all been threatened and in that sense the damage has been done, but it's not irreparable but I agree, we do need a sensible plan that isn't going to kick off the troubles in Northern Ireland again, embitter Scotland to go independent and weaken the economy of the country further. If there is a totally viable plan that can stand up to scrutiny, then great. But whimsical ideas and fancy notions, like the whole £350mil a week thing which turned out to be a lie, should really be dismissed by any sane person in authority.
The general public rightly demand a lot of things from their elected officials, but unfortunately not everything can be delivered on no matter how high the majority is or how big the mandate is.
I voted leave on basis that Britain has had a proud cultural history
"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 think the Mods have let this thread stand because it's such a HOT Topic now, that it's better to have it all directed into this one thread, rather than having new ones pop up on a regular basis over the next few weeks.
(which could become a Moderators nightmare to edit)
My own personal opinion is that common sense will eventually settle in and some kind of compromise will be worked out, where the UK will remain a de facto member of the EU, as that particular body institutes new rules and regulations to appease the growing dissent within its ranks.
Then at some point in the future, another public referendum will be held to see if "the Common People" of the UK still want to break away.
At that point, it will truly be either the end or a new beginning.
What they have now is neither, their economy is in limbo, and their big business' are already making their way for the dory to mainland Europe...
Which is not good for anybody on either side of the discussion.
<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
Just a quick point for a few people. We do not elect Prime Ministers. We elect MPs. The party with the most sitting MPs forms the government. That party reserves the right to appoint their own leader in whatever manner they see fit (business lobbying, public vote, trade unions opinions, trial by combat).
We are not Americans, our head of state is a different person to our head of government, but both are unelected. We had this when Brown took over and now Cameron has stepped down. Because people confuse the powers of the HoS and HoG. A Prime Minister is not special, they are an extension of Government as a whole, they have little to no special powers. For instance, the power to form their cabinet is a power they have as Party Leader, not as PM, the Leader of the Opposition has that power as well. A government can technically continue with no leader unless a vote of no confidence is called.
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.
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
@artan42 Yay, that sounds like breaking free from foreign tyranny and taking the country back. Not being able to elect the leader, I mean
But seriously, I think this is the same way the EU comissioners get isntated. The people elect their national party for the European Parliament. In the Parliament there are European parties formed from the national ones (a conservative, a green and so on). And then the parliament, the majority of seats determined by national elections, instates the comissioners in a parliament wide vote. So british policy and EU policy has more in common it seems.
But leaders are rarely directly elected. In Germany they get nominated by their parties and the people vote for the party, the chancellor candidate however "pulls the weight" of course because people need a face to stay interested.
^ 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
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
Comments
Oh what the hell. I was supporting Wales anyway
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 voted remain but I also respect the results. Some people were dumb enough to vote but I also expect them to do what is best now for the country.
The leave camp had no plan and did not expect to win. There plan was to be in the single market without free movement, not having the EU laws that come with, no payment to the EU and being deluded about it. The EU will never allow it.
They already said they would not control/stop immigration from the EU as well which was one of the few key things for voters as well as the money that could be spent on the NHS (I did miss out the ability to control our own laws as well).
They also spoke of opening trade deals with others like india but the question is how long would it take to get those trade deals and I would assume it would have to be after we agreed the EU exit which would be two years.
Cameron never wanted to be the one to leave and also knew of the TRIBBLE storm that would hit the UK and which is why he left it to someone else since clearly they never had a proper plan for brexit.
If the leave camp can't come up with a good viable plan for the UK outside the EU then Parliament should discard it. Its not worth risking so many years of uncertainty and messing with peoples lives and jobs on a wim and most certainly on no plan.
If they come up with a solid plan that is achievable then they should push for article 50 get the negotiations out the way and then start our own trade deals.
We need a plan that won't wreck the country and the economy futher and won't put many jobs at risk. We need a sensible approach to this and that is what the people would expect and not to let the country sink based on the ambition of someone who just wanted to be PM.
People and the markets need certainty and need to know what is going on sooner rather then later so they can then make their future investment plans. Having the government do nothing and then waiting till September / October is not going to help. This should never be happening.
I don't know for sure, but I'm hearing that a lot of people are unhappy with threads about politics. What I'm proposing is that we report all political threads, just until we figure out what's going on, cause no one has a clue. And no one reports threads better than me, believe me. And when I'm elected supreme ruler of the universe, I'm going to build a wall between these forums and politics, and I'll make the politicians pay for it.
This is why I expect that the new committee that Cameron announced yesterday will effectively kick it into the long grass until either the leave camp can come up with a sensible plan that isn't just pie in the sky or the public forgets about it and moves on. There's a phrase in politics "death by committee" and I think that's effectively what this is. Given the margin and the unelected nature of the new Prime Minister, it's a poisoned chalice. Whomever does make the call to invoke Article 50 will be taking the UK into uncharted waters, with the possibility of no return. That's a huge gamble that may or may not pay off.
Trading with the Commonwealth is a great idea, except that places like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India to name but a few are an extremely long way away especially by ship. Unlike the rest of Europe which is on our doorstep, both of which will have their costs, though now the costs for Europe will be higher.
It kinda reminds me of those relatives everyone has who will drive hundreds of miles to save a few pence on the price of bread rather than pay that little bit extra by buying from the corner shop.
The economy, currency and employment have all been threatened and in that sense the damage has been done, but it's not irreparable but I agree, we do need a sensible plan that isn't going to kick off the troubles in Northern Ireland again, embitter Scotland to go independent and weaken the economy of the country further. If there is a totally viable plan that can stand up to scrutiny, then great. But whimsical ideas and fancy notions, like the whole £350mil a week thing which turned out to be a lie, should really be dismissed by any sane person in authority.
The general public rightly demand a lot of things from their elected officials, but unfortunately not everything can be delivered on no matter how high the majority is or how big the mandate is.
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
(which could become a Moderators nightmare to edit)
My own personal opinion is that common sense will eventually settle in and some kind of compromise will be worked out, where the UK will remain a de facto member of the EU, as that particular body institutes new rules and regulations to appease the growing dissent within its ranks.
Then at some point in the future, another public referendum will be held to see if "the Common People" of the UK still want to break away.
At that point, it will truly be either the end or a new beginning.
What they have now is neither, their economy is in limbo, and their big business' are already making their way for the dory to mainland Europe...
Which is not good for anybody on either side of the discussion.
<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
We are not Americans, our head of state is a different person to our head of government, but both are unelected. We had this when Brown took over and now Cameron has stepped down. Because people confuse the powers of the HoS and HoG. A Prime Minister is not special, they are an extension of Government as a whole, they have little to no special powers. For instance, the power to form their cabinet is a power they have as Party Leader, not as PM, the Leader of the Opposition has that power as well. A government can technically continue with no leader unless a vote of no confidence is called.
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.
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!
But seriously, I think this is the same way the EU comissioners get isntated. The people elect their national party for the European Parliament. In the Parliament there are European parties formed from the national ones (a conservative, a green and so on). And then the parliament, the majority of seats determined by national elections, instates the comissioners in a parliament wide vote. So british policy and EU policy has more in common it seems.
But leaders are rarely directly elected. In Germany they get nominated by their parties and the people vote for the party, the chancellor candidate however "pulls the weight" of course because people need a face to stay interested.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
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