chrisp65 Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 30 minutes ago, Genie said: Imagine how useful it would have been if all these debates had happened before the public vote. For context on when it's best to have discussions. There was a seminar yesterday for tory MP's that wanted to know what a 'customs union' is. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 9 minutes ago, Enda said: Lads, your a monarchy can be both constitutional and theocratic. Those two things are not exclusive. Your monarch is the head of the Established/official church, and Catholics are forbidden from holding the post. How is that not theocratic? What adjective would you use to describe that, other than theocratic? It's the separation of church and state. Apart from Bishops sitting in the house of Lords there's no Religious 'Ruler' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enda Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 1 hour ago, VILLAMARV said: Perhaps we are all brainwashed but I prefer the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy over a Republik. Checks and balances and all that. If you like checks and balances, then you should not like monarchies. Lizzie is, by all accounts, an outstanding lady and a fine representative for your country. What if she weren't, and if her offspring was a bit of a knob? Very hard to place a check and balance on that. Presidents are elected, are placed up for re-election, and their kids are not deigned to be the best person for the job. I accept the current monarch is a good one, but the system is terrible. Unless you don't trust people to vote for presidents, but then there are words to describe that too. 1 hour ago, snowychap said: I think that I'm arguing that the 'unwritten constitution' line is pretty daft, even if widely used (and widely used academically) Widely used by academics, but refuted right here on VT. Come on snowy, you're being argumentative for the sake of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 1 hour ago, snowychap said: No, we should have a Republic. The office of President ought to be a ceremonial position for a two year term (with all the trimmings) randomly given to someone who voted in local elections. There is no perhaps/yeah maybe button Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enda Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 Just now, VILLAMARV said: It's the separation of church and state. Apart from Bishops sitting in the house of Lords there's no Religious 'Ruler' This is the "all Brexiteers are racist" versus "all racists are Brexiteers" debate again. I'm not saying your country is a theocracy. I'm saying your monarch is theocratic. She's the leader of a state church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, Enda said: This is the "all Brexiteers are racist" versus "all racists are Brexiteers" debate again. I'm not saying your country is a theocracy. I'm saying your monarch is theocratic. She's the leader of a state church. You missed the meat in that sandwich. The element of arguable theocracy is those Bishops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 It's arguable that Jeremy Clarkson is a racist, he has displayed racist tendencies. That said I believe he is a remainer. He is the only one I can think of to go against all racists vote leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 Just now, Enda said: This is the "all Brexiteers are racist" versus "all racists are Brexiteers" debate again. I'm not saying your country is a theocracy. I'm saying your monarch is theocratic. She's the leader of a state church. She is the Supreme Governor of the C of E. Prince Charles has intimated a few times he wouldn't see himself in quite the same role. The 'beauty' of the system is, it will find an accommodation for the monarch. If we end up with a catholic head of state, they'll find a work around, just like if the king / queen was a believer in atheism ( ). Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of monarchy. Ridiculous out dated system that does not stand up to any scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer24 Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 17 minutes ago, snowychap said: So it is all, largely, more of the same. I am an incredibly strong remainer. However, even I don't want a unilateral revocation. It would cause massive problems, give such a strong argument to Brexiteers that they've been played for fools and increase likelihood it was just a pause in Brexit proceeding. The way to kill this, the only way to kill it truly and properly, is a second referendum. The hope being that the result is far more conclusive than the first in Remains favour. Yes there'd still be a bit of bitching and moaning from strong Brexiteers but the argument would be far less strong and they would be more easily sidelined as 'extremists' for want of a better word. Get May's Deal (or whatever the most popular Leave option is even if that's just on pure votes and less than a majority) up against Remain inna referendum and then let's get this done. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, Enda said: If you like checks and balances, then you should not like monarchies. Lizzie is, by all accounts, an outstanding lady and a fine representative for your country. What if she weren't, and if her offspring was a bit of a knob? Very hard to place a check and balance on that. Presidents are elected, are placed up for re-election, and their kids are not deigned to be the best person for the job. I accept the current monarch is a good one, but the system is terrible. Unless you don't trust people to vote for presidents, but then there are words to describe that too. I'm far from a monarchist at heart. There are many issues with our current Monarch that run much deeper than representing the country. The checks and balances, while not necessarily used in ways many of us would agree with have an important role to play in our functioning society. The separation say of the Police or the Armed Forces from the state. Practically in recent times maybe this has meant little. But theoretically at the very least serves a massive purpose. 7 minutes ago, Enda said: Widely used by academics, but refuted right here on VT. Come on snowy, you're being argumentative for the sake of it. It is written. It is not codified. Go VT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 9 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said: I am an incredibly strong remainer. However, even I don't want a unilateral revocation. It would cause massive problems, give such a strong argument to Brexiteers that they've been played for fools and increase likelihood it was just a pause in Brexit proceeding. The way to kill this, the only way to kill it truly and properly, is a second referendum. The hope being that the result is far more conclusive than the first in Remains favour. Yes there'd still be a bit of bitching and moaning from strong Brexiteers but the argument would be far less strong and they would be more easily sidelined as 'extremists' for want of a better word. Get May's Deal (or whatever the most popular Leave option is even if that's just on pure votes and less than a majority) up against Remain inna referendum and then let's get this done. It’s the most logical path but the timing and politics make it difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 8 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said: I am an incredibly strong remainer. However, even I don't want a unilateral revocation. It would cause massive problems, give such a strong argument to Brexiteers that they've been played for fools and increase likelihood it was just a pause in Brexit proceeding. The way to kill this, the only way to kill it truly and properly, is a second referendum. The hope being that the result is far more conclusive than the first in Remains favour. Yes there'd still be a bit of bitching and moaning from strong Brexiteers but the argument would be far less strong and they would be more easily sidelined as 'extremists' for want of a better word. Get May's Deal (or whatever the most popular Leave option is even if that's just on pure votes and less than a majority) up against Remain inna referendum and then let's get this done. I don't think you're right. Nothing will ever 'kill it truly and properly' (I'm not sure that something ever should). The point about May and revocation is not about it being a first choice but a last resort. If she absolutely will not countenance revocation then, unless things are extended and extended until some final decision is actually agreed upon, no deal remains the default. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 20 minutes ago, Enda said: Widely used by academics, but refuted right here on VT. Come on snowy, you're being argumentative for the sake of it. It's not being 'refuted' as such but the meaning of its use is (and the wider implications of its use are) being very much questioned. Your responses seem to be rather poor considering the way I've couched my opinion. I'm definitely not being argumentative for the sake of it. It is a point I've made on here a number of times before. If you want to write it off as you have above then carry on just don't bother involving me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 17 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said: The hope being that the result is far more conclusive than the first in Remains favour. If that were a given then maybe. I'm not sure it is. In many ways it could be a bigger risk to get another leave result However Ireland went to the polls 3 times over Lisbon IIRC........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted April 2, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted April 2, 2019 24 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said: If that were a given then maybe. I'm not sure it is. In many ways it could be a bigger risk to get another leave result However Ireland went to the polls 3 times over Lisbon IIRC........... Worth noting that the Irish referendums came after adjustments were made to Lisbon. They didn't just have the same proposition put to them again until they gave the 'right' answer as Brexiteers love to claim. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: For context on when it's best to have discussions. There was a seminar yesterday for tory MP's that wanted to know what a 'customs union' is. They’ll be scheduling the “what is a referendum” conference any week now 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Chindie said: Worth noting that the Irish referendums came after adjustments were made to Lisbon. They didn't just have the same proposition put to them again until they gave the 'right' answer as Brexiteers love to claim. Quite. A good reminder that they were voting on a specific thing. That's massively different to the way the last 3/4 years have gone. Do you want to sign up to the treaty? doesn't come with the follow up question of what form that would take. Edited April 2, 2019 by VILLAMARV ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enda Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 44 minutes ago, snowychap said: It's not being 'refuted' as such but the meaning of its use is (and the wider implications of its use are) being very much questioned. Your responses seem to be rather poor considering the way I've couched my opinion. I'm definitely not being argumentative for the sake of it. It is a point I've made on here a number of times before. If you want to write it off as you have above then carry on just don't bother involving me. You are being rather obtuse as you know well what I mean and are literally arguing semantics. "Unwritten" is an accepted term (if not universally so) for the UK constitution. You ask what conventions are unwritten, and the answer is nearly all of them. Otherwise they would essentially be statute. In this sense I nearly prefer the term "unwritten" to "uncodified" -- I think the UK Cons is quite codified in that it is systematic and largely well understood, but unwritten! -- but clearly neither terms are technically false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Seat68 said: It's arguable that Jeremy Clarkson is a racist, he has displayed racist tendencies. That said I believe he is a remainer. He is the only one I can think of to go against all racists vote leave. Maybe it's some sort of pragmatic racism. "I want them all to go home, but if they did there'd be no one left to be racist about" and they'd lose their raison d'etre? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enda Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 49 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said: If that were a given then maybe. I'm not sure it is. In many ways it could be a bigger risk to get another leave result However Ireland went to the polls 3 times over Lisbon IIRC........... Twice. Both times the referendum was approved by the government, and then the House, and put to the people. We have referenda every year or so and lots of people didn't bother with Lisbon as it was expected to sail through. The first one was largely a shock. All the major parties (except SF, surprise surprise) had supported it. All the polls predicted it passing comfortably. It was a Thursday, and turnout was low. I remember I made 60 euro from PaddyPower on it. It was put up the next year (after government approved it and passed the House), taken seriously, held on a Friday, turnout went up to 60%, and it passed 2:1. The only undemocratic thing about the whole process was the unusually low turnout for the first referendum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts