Community and democracy

[Beef Oven]

It has nothing to do with it beyond the nevertheless salient fact that no government run by any other UK political party would seek to pull UK out of EU in the first place

Don't you bet on it. Watch this space.

[Beef Oven]

You seem not to be concentrating. I'll repeat what I asked you in #106, namely

"For what I hope will be the last time, are you - or would you be - happy with a national government that is both willing to endorse a snoopers' charter such as is now being discussed AND continue to sanction and endorse by statute an immunity against liability for damages in favour of certain organsiations that are otherwise supposed ostensibly to fall within its jurisdiction? - and do you consider such situations any more or less "undemocratic" than those about which you complain of the European Commission?"

yes. less.

[ahinton]

Don't you bet on it. Watch this space.

I'm betting on nothing, but what other possible government do you suppose might try to sever that connection?

[ahinton]

yes. less.

Really! Well, I'm relieved to know that you're not in charge of such judicial matters! You're willing to accept and indeed endorse both the implementation and management of a snoopers' charter and the granting of statutory immunity from liability to damages to certain organisations without even specifying either why or which organisations! Mon Dieu! Were a government to continue / proceed with these things I'd know well that it would be time to emigrate sharpish! I had assumed that you respected the principles of British justice; it seems that I was wrong to do so.

[Beef Oven]

I'm betting on nothing, but what other possible government do you suppose might try to sever that connection?

When the election looms, some politicians and some parties will be willing to sell their souls for power.

If the EU issue remains as salient as it has been, they could be vying to promise withdrawal.

[Beef Oven]

Really! Well, I'm relieved to know that you're not in charge of such judicial matters! You're willing to accept and indeed endorse both the implementation and management of a snoopers' charter and the granting of statutory immunity from liability to damages to certain organisations without even specifying either why or which organisations! Mon Dieu! Were a government to continue / proceed with these things I'd know well that it would be time to emigrate sharpish! I had assumed that you respected the principles of British justice; it seems that I was wrong to do so.

You tricked me Al.

You only wanted me to answer the question so you could round on me!

I did not know there was a right and a wrong way of answering.

[ahinton]

When the election looms, some politicians and some parties will be willing to sell their souls for power.

If the EU issue remains as salient as it has been, they could be vying to promise withdrawal.

Neither of those scenarios is entirely inconceivable, I grant you, but selling a party soul for power is one thing whereas acting upon the means by which a party might seek to do so following the winning of an election is quite another, as we have all seen many times!

[ahinton]

You tricked me Al.

You only wanted me to answer the question so you could round on me!

I did not know there was a right and a wrong way of answering.

Not at all - and there is an honest and a dishonest way to answer rather than a right and wrong one. You have chosen what I take to be an honest answer, which I appreciate just as I do not appreciate the content of that answer. I have not "rounded" on you, merely expressed my dissent with your view, to which you are as entitled as I am to dissent therefrom!

[french frank]

Your curiosity knows no bounds!?. If you were a cat, you'd have ten lives.

This website is an EU website, what do you expect!?

By the way, even they say that the commission (as we have learned, is an un-elected body of suited managers), 'is the only institution empowered (!!!?) to initiate legislation.'

Initiate being the key word. It doesn't mean parliament/the Council can't amend or reject proposals.

Yes, I went to the EU site for information (are you suggesting it was inaccurate?), you went to Wikipedia.

When the election looms, some politicians and some parties will be willing to sell their souls for power.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23021212

[Beef Oven]

Initiate being the key word. It doesn't mean parliament/the Council can't amend or reject proposals.

Yes, I went to the EU site for information (are you suggesting it was inaccurate?), you went to Wikipedia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23021212

Democracy is not about semantics.

EU site visit? Hardly the height of curiosity!!!

I went to Wikipedia because you did! I thought it would comfort you!!!

Like the link you provide!

[french frank]

I went to Wikipedia because you did! I thought it would comfort you!!!

I don't recall going to Wikipedia on this subject. ? Further back I said it could be 'misused'.

[Beef Oven]

I don't recall going to Wikipedia on this subject. ? Further back I said it could be 'misused'.

Your link in post #57 was pre-fixed with notwikipedia, that confused me. Mea culpa, the link was actually the EU website (again).

[Sydney Grew]

Who on earth could or should be expected to decide which people possessed of which ones and when ought to be charged with government as a direct consequence thereof? That is absurd! It also ignores the question of for whose benefit the implementation of any such government's policies might be intended. Also, who determines, monitors and regulates the qualification process, the subsequent government process or indeed any other process in such a régime?

Permit me Mr. H. to respond to your query in the form of a question of my own!

Who on earth could or should be expected to decide which people ought to be charged with [government] piloting an aeroplane/building a bridge? That is [absurd] not absurd! It also ignores the question of for whose benefit the implementation of any such [government's policies] piloting activity/bridge-building might be intended. Also, who determines, monitors and regulates the qualification process, the subsequent [government] piloting/building of bridges or indeed any other process?

Think about it - is the oddity of your original query not now at once evident? Why should "good government" be treated differently from piloting an aeroplane or building a bridge?

[french frank]

Why should "good government" be treated differently from piloting an aeroplane or building a bridge?

Because government ministers have the back-up of a professional civil service which can advise on the technical and legal aspects of the job on the job, whereas pilots and engineers don't: that's why they have the specialist professional training themselves. In government there is no universal agreement on what is the "right" or "best" course of action in particular situations; and it depends on varying approaches most often indicated by the party affiliation.

You deny any validity to the concept of equality inherent in democracy which is the reason you disagree. But disagreeing doen't make you right!

[aeolium]

I think this is an interesting contribution to the debate (and I also recommend reading the link to Paul Mason's article, tied in with the release of his book on the protest movement).