UK Politics IV: Disraeli Gears

[Vassenor]

So apparently we're not isolationist. We just want to shut the borders.

[Ifreann]

why should they not?

as much as I loath the monarchy, they are (apparently) humans so shouldn't they be able to chose their own religion?

I suppose you think the Pope ought be allowed to convert to Protestantism, too. And that the Emperor of Japan should be able to convert to Islam.

I would find that very entertaining, actually.

Surprisingly heads of state who also possess religious roles aren't allowed to not be members of the religion they hold a position within. If a king or queen really wanted to convert to Catholicism, they are free to abdicate and renounce their claim to the throne.

Then maybe the office of head of state should not also be a religious role.

[Gauthier]

So apparently we're not isolationist. We just want to shut the borders.

Why is it he's always cluelessly scratching his head in every photo?

[Ifreann]

So apparently we're not isolationist. We just want to shut the borders.

Why is it he's always cluelessly scratching his head in every photo?

He's trying to keep the mop from talking in public.

[Arkolon]

So apparently we're not isolationist. We just want to shut the borders.

Why is it he's always cluelessly scratching his head in every photo?

I have to say it's a bit tedious to keep using embarrassing photos of Bojo for news articles. He's awkward by nature but I'm sure it's possible to take a relatively normal picture of the man.

[San Lumen]

That's exactly what you said. You said London and Scotland voted so heavily in favor of remain that it should be considered sufficient to prevent leaving the EU. How is that not implying Scotland and London's vote should count more?

Saying that the sheer level of opposition in those regions and nationally is a good reason to not have left the EU isn't "making someone's vote count more", unless you're mad.

The referendum was a dumb idea, for a dumb decision, on a dumb threshold.

Then what is it other than saying their votes should count more? The country as a whole voted leave but because London and Scotland voted remain the country should stay in EU. How is that not saying their votes should count more?

[Elepis]

Why is it he's always cluelessly scratching his head in every photo?

I have to say it's a bit tedious to keep using embarrassing photos of Bojo for news articles. He's awkward by nature but I'm sure it's possible to take a relatively normal picture of the man.

your right, we should eiter use zipping to greatness or this one which shows his agressive foreign policy

[Elepis]

Saying that the sheer level of opposition in those regions and nationally is a good reason to not have left the EU isn't "making someone's vote count more", unless you're mad.

The referendum was a dumb idea, for a dumb decision, on a dumb threshold.

Then what is it other than saying their votes should count more? The country as a whole voted leave but because London and Scotland voted remain the country should stay in EU. How is that not saying their votes should count more?

well maybe they should count more then? If 51% of people voted to put their hands in a blender and 48% against, shouldn't the 48% be except from mutilation by blender?

[San Lumen]

Then what is it other than saying their votes should count more? The country as a whole voted leave but because London and Scotland voted remain the country should stay in EU. How is that not saying their votes should count more?

well maybe they should count more then? If 51% of people voted to put their hands in a blender and 48% against, shouldn't the 48% be except from mutilation by blender?

Why should it count more? Liverpool and Manchester voted remain too as did Cardiff. I guess their votes should count more too. Should we do the same in general elections? You don't believe in one man, one vote?

[Elepis]

well maybe they should count more then? If 51% of people voted to put their hands in a blender and 48% against, shouldn't the 48% be except from mutilation by blender?

Why should it count more? Liverpool and Manchester voted remain too as did Cardiff. I guess their votes should count more too. Should we do the same in general elections? You don't believe in one man, one vote?

Or rather why should people with no fucking knowledge of the EU who seem the blame their joblessness and their own stupidity on the EU be allowed to vote?

Of course I believe in one person one vote, but not for something as important as this. This should have been left to people who actually knew something about the EU rather than drop outs from Sunderland who blame the destruction of the car industry on Brussles.

[Olerand]

But you had the referendum, chronologically after the elections too. Leave won. Don't be sore losers, just go.

Then so is democracy, but such is our world. Now out.

It is not part of the British mentality to surrender so easily...

But still held, and still won by Leave. Britain should therefore accept the democratic mandate and get out.

No

Oxi

Nyet

Nine

Don't be sore losers. And don't be perfidious either.

Why should it count more? Liverpool and Manchester voted remain too as did Cardiff. I guess their votes should count more too. Should we do the same in general elections? You don't believe in one man, one vote?

Or rather why should people with no fucking knowledge of the EU who seem the blame their joblessness and their own stupidity on the EU be allowed to vote?

Of course I believe in one person one vote, but not for something as important as this. This should have been left to people who actually knew something about the EU rather than drop outs from Sunderland who blame the destruction of the car industry on Brussles.

You do no favors to the European project by advocating this, one hopes you know.

[Questers]

The War has for a long time been the standard justification for any kind of anything. You should know that by now. It's just what we do. Two opposing sides of the political spectrum can allude to it without anyone noticing that they have opposing views.

[Questers]

Or rather why should people with no fucking knowledge of the EU who seem the blame their joblessness and their own stupidity on the EU be allowed to vote?

lmfao

the open hatred of democracy continues

[Old Tyrannia]

I suppose you think the Pope ought be allowed to convert to Protestantism, too. And that the Emperor of Japan should be able to convert to Islam.

I would find that very entertaining, actually.

I doubt that Catholics or followers of Shinto would feel the same way.

Surprisingly heads of state who also possess religious roles aren't allowed to not be members of the religion they hold a position within. If a king or queen really wanted to convert to Catholicism, they are free to abdicate and renounce their claim to the throne.

Then maybe the office of head of state should not also be a religious role.

Why not? Positions of leadership have had religious responsibilities in most cultures since the emergence of human civilisation. I think that preserving the unique role and traditions of the British monarchy, many of which are intimately tied to the Anglican faith, is a good thing.

[Elepis]

Or rather why should people with no fucking knowledge of the EU who seem the blame their joblessness and their own stupidity on the EU be allowed to vote?

lmfao

the open hatred of democracy continues

I fear that is what they have driven me to (although, admittedly I don't know what to replace it with)

We do have parliament for a reason though, so people who actually (or supposedly) know something can drive Britain rather than Gazza from Barrow

[Elepis]

No

Oxi

Nyet

Nine

Don't be sore losers. And don't be perfidious either.

Why not, we are entitled to complain after elections aren't we. Christ knows everyone does.

Or rather why should people with no fucking knowledge of the EU who seem the blame their joblessness and their own stupidity on the EU be allowed to vote?

Of course I believe in one person one vote, but not for something as important as this. This should have been left to people who actually knew something about the EU rather than drop outs from Sunderland who blame the destruction of the car industry on Brussles.

You do no favors to the European project by advocating this, one hopes you know.

By activating representative democracy ?

[Questers]

a. assertion that people voted exit are dumb and people who voted remain are clever is unproven by any data or evidence, just Guardian Conjecture (this forum is SMOKING GUN!!! evidence that lots of people with sub-standard intelligence quotias and total lack of understanding of major issues can support remain and simply point to more intelligent and educated people to make arguments for them for something they intuitively prefer but are incapable of defending personally)

b. 'required knowledge for voting because this is an important decision' is a value statement that takes into account the political importance of a decision without considering that people make decisions all the time about things that effect all of us that we don't even have a vote over, that we vote for our parliamentarians without having expert knowledge of the operations of their offices or the issues which they deal with, and that referendums were held in the UK previously and not contested on grounds of "erryone is dumb" because the ruling class happened to agree with the outcome

c. qualified voting on major issues is a precedent for qualified control of political discourse and direction, qualified control of everything regarding our political life, but more importantly begs the major question: who is qualified and who decides?

[The Archregimancy]

Or, parliament could repeal the Act of Settlement, which they themselves created and is the only barrier to a Catholic monarch. The role of the Head of the Church of England is independent from the role of monarch.

No, it is not. The position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England has been tied to that of monarch since the Act of Supremacy (1558). Section 8 of the aforementioned act, which remains in force, invested supreme jurisdiction over the Church of England in the English Crown. Parliament could repeal the Act of Settlement, but that would throw the entire post-1701 succession into doubt and technically make Franz, Duke of Bavaria the rightful King of the United Kingdom. Besides which, much of the monarchy's role as a significant British cultural institution is tied to its Anglican identity.

You're correct about the Act of Supremacy, but likely incorrect about a couple of other points.

1) Repealing the anti-Catholic aspects of the Act of Settlement would not call the post-1701 succession into doubt, or place Francis I on the throne. I think we can safely assume that the Hanoverian succession is safe by now; we're no more likely to restore the Jacobite succession than we are to restore the Plantagenet succession (which would place an Australian resident of Wangaratta on the throne). In any case, even if a Jacobite succession were even remotely feasible, it would still be possible to merely amend the aspects of the Act of Settlement disqualifying Catholics while keeping intact the sections investing the succession in the heirs of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. If nothing else, we delight as a nation in our constitutional fudging.

2) Scotland will be very surprised to hear that the monarchy's role as a significant British cultural institution is tied to its Anglican identity. Indeed, we had a spot of bother between Scotland and England back in the 17th century about that whole imposition of episcopal succession bit that led to Scotland categorically rejecting an episcopal church as the state - or national - church. Though the broader Anglican Communion has branches in the other nations of the UK - where they are minority churches - the Church of England of which the monarch is the head is a specifically English institution, not a British one. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England is head of the CoE, but the Archbishop of Canterbury is the primus inter pares head of the Anglican Communion; the CoE and the Anglican Communion are not the same thing.

For what it's worth, the Monarch separately swears to uphold the constitution of the Church of Scotland in the coronation oath, and appoints the ceremonial office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, but has no formal leadership role within the governance of the Kirk.

3) And if we're going to be hyper-technical, the English Crown ceased to exist as an office either de jure or de facto with the ratification of the 1707 Acts of Union.

[Ifreann]

Saying that the sheer level of opposition in those regions and nationally is a good reason to not have left the EU isn't "making someone's vote count more", unless you're mad.

The referendum was a dumb idea, for a dumb decision, on a dumb threshold.

Then what is it other than saying their votes should count more? The country as a whole voted leave but because London and Scotland voted remain the country should stay in EU. How is that not saying their votes should count more?

This from the person who wants votes in a non-binding, advisory referendum to be binding on the government, on voters, and on the the entire financial sector around the world. You're the one wanting votes to count more. You want Leave votes to count as the inviolable will of God.

---

I would find that very entertaining, actually.

I doubt that Catholics or followers of Shinto would feel the same way.

Therein would lie the humour.

Then maybe the office of head of state should not also be a religious role.

Why not?

Because it imposes an unfair and unnecessary restriction on a basic human right of those who hold those offices.

Positions of leadership have had religious responsibilities in most cultures since the emergence of human civilisation. I think that preserving the unique role and traditions of the British monarchy, many of which are intimately tied to the Anglican faith, is a good thing.

This sounds contradictory. How is it a unique role and tradition of the British monarchy if the same thing or similar things have happened in most cultures since forever?

[Questers]

In no other occasion in a free and fair British election has anyone ever said THEIR VOTES DON'T COUNT!1111

[Elepis]

In no other occasion in a free and fair British election has anyone ever said THEIR VOTES DON'T COUNT!1111

Just because their votes counted doesn't make it correct. One could argue the results of the March 1933 Federal elections in Germany were a triumph for democracy, a party that had only existed for a little over a decade swept to power on a tsunami of votes, mainly from the poor. However that does not make electing the Nazi Party a good thing.

[Questers]

That's exactly what you said. You said London and Scotland voted so heavily in favor of remain that it should be considered sufficient to prevent leaving the EU. How is that not implying Scotland and London's vote should count more?

Saying that the sheer level of opposition in those regions and nationally is a good reason to not have left the EU isn't "making someone's vote count more", unless you're mad.

The referendum was a dumb idea, for a dumb decision, on a dumb threshold.

This is kind of a non position.

For instance, Yorkshire voted to leave. It's about the same size as Scotland -- smaller by a hundred thousand or so -- so is Yorkshire going to be able to veto Britain staying in the EU or what? It might be English but its probably closer to Scotland or Wales than it is to London.

The country voted to leave. That's it.

[Questers]

In no other occasion in a free and fair British election has anyone ever said THEIR VOTES DON'T COUNT!1111

Just because their votes counted doesn't make it correct. One could argue the results of the March 1933 Federal elections in Germany were a triumph for democracy, a party that had only existed for a little over a decade swept to power on a tsunami of votes, mainly from the poor. However that does not make electing the Nazi Party a good thing.

it was good for the nazis

you might say the election of tony blair/margaret thatcher/clement attlee was great/ok/horrific. that's not the point. we have functioning democratic and legalistic institutions. we don't need people who think they are better than everyone else to decide which votes matter and which don't.

[Hydesland]

Antidisestablishmentarianism

Conspiracy: this whole silly debate was engineered just so you could have an excuse to use that word legitimately in a sentence.

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

lol

Talking of conspiracies, not sure what a 2014 article from Glenn "the left wing Alex Jones" Greenwald has to do with anything.

why should they not?

The problem with trying to apply modern secular principles to a monarchy is that this will always lead to republicanism.

After-all, continuing with this line of questioning, why not ask why the monarchy should be hereditary? Why should any member of the royal family be entitled to any funding? Why shouldn't the monarchy be elected? If elected, why should we call them king/queen rather than president? Why should a powerless president get to reside in a palace? etc...

If you're asking these questions, I suspect you've rather missed the point.

[Questers]

The problem with trying to apply modern secular principles to a monarchy is that this will always lead to republicanism.

ding ding ding