Current Affairs The Far Right

[dead_soft]

I agree with most of that Mikey, however what concerns me at the present on both sides of the pond, is the way the far right are trying to ride roughshod over the democratic process.

Over here we've had the Breixteers shouting about the "will of the People" and the insistence that the democracy is upheld, whilst on the next breath calling for a circumventing of the Parliamentary democracy and the process that must therefore be followed, labelling the judges in the court case "The enemy of the people" for upholding said democratic process, and then today intimating that the upper House will face closure if they don't pass the bill as it stands.

Then you've got Trump slating the judges that dare to challenge his ill conceived piece of political grandstanding and stomping his feet because he thinks he should be able to override the democratic process over there.

It's borderline fascism, and extremely worrying where we are heading here.

This is what gets me. People ask for democracy to be upheld yet the referendum was against a very fundamental part of the British democracy. Britain is not a state run on plebiscites. Parliamentary democracy (crowned democracy, but that's semantics) has been the way the country has been run. So, unless we are wishing to change the fundamental nature of the country, why did we allow a referendum to be the deciding factor in this?

 

[JustOpp]

Americans are truly awful people. Every last one of them.

Hey! I resemble that comment.

 

[longers]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/federal-appeals-court-refuses-to-reinstate-trump-travel-ban/

The comments section lol

Calls to hang the judges for treason, send them to jail and disband all courts due to a state of emergency.

What a bunch of absolute cretins.

 

[Dylan]

We need a good old fashioned World War to stop us being selfish and greedy.

Bagsy not having France this time.

Where is this war going to be fought then?

 

[Moomin]

Where is this war going to be fought then?

Online, a combination of call of duty and the classic powerball.

 

[1966efc]

This is what gets me. People ask for democracy to be upheld yet the referendum was against a very fundamental part of the British democracy. Britain is not a state run on plebiscites. Parliamentary democracy (crowned democracy, but that's semantics) has been the way the country has been run. So, unless we are wishing to change the fundamental nature of the country, why did we allow a referendum to be the deciding factor in this?

Because Parliament mandated it by a very, very large majority, the people having voted in a party which promised such a vote in a previous election.

 

[dead_soft]

Because Parliament mandated it by a very, very large majority, the people having voted in a party which promised such a vote in a previous election.

But that we even got to that point is at odds with us and now we have, if parliament believe it to be detrimental to the county, they should be able to have a say on it. We should not be ruled by a referendum and the whine of 'it's democracy'

 

[1966efc]

But that we even got to that point is at odds with us and now we have, if parliament believe it to be detrimental to the county, they should be able to have a say on it. We should not be ruled by a referendum and the whine of 'it's democracy'

I don't really follow your first point: "But that we even got ... etc". Do you mean that those who disagreed with E U member ship should have been silenced, or that no political party should have offered a referendum?

"We should not be ruled by referendum" - it's a point of view but Parliament decided otherwise.

"It's democracy" might be described as a whine or as fair comment. Given the very clear path of events from manifesto promise through the initial vote to hold the referendum leading to the Leave result, I'd strongly suggest that fair comment is the right answer.

It's arguable that Cameron was unwise to offer the referendum but it was a choice he and his party decided to go with. The democratic validity of the process though has been pretty transparent.

As a general point to all Remainers, I trawled the net for all of 90 seconds and came across half a dozen groups campaigning organising / lobbying for a "Rejoin the E U' agenda.

 

[abelard]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/federal-appeals-court-refuses-to-reinstate-trump-travel-ban/

The comments section lol

Calls to hang the judges for treason, send them to jail and disband all courts due to a state of emergency.

What a bunch of absolute cretins.

the real fear is that someone like Bannon is looking several moves ahead, setting the stage now and then praying for a terrorist attack later, so they can blame it on the judiciary and use it as a pretext to start ignoring judges altogether.



hopefully just idle conspiracy speculation, but this is what Bannon said before he stopped talking to the media:

"I met Steve Bannon—the executive director of Breitbart.com who’s now become the chief executive of the Trump campaign, replacing the newly resigned Paul Manafort—at a book party held in his Capitol Hill townhouse on Nov. 12, 2013. We were standing next to a picture of his daughter, a West Point graduate, who at the time was a lieutenant in the 101 Airborne Division serving in Iraq. The picture was notable because she was sitting on what was once Saddam Hussein’s gold throne with a machine gun on her lap. “I’m very proud of her,” Bannon said.

Then we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html

 

[dead_soft]

I don't really follow your first point: "But that we even got ... etc". Do you mean that those who disagreed with E U member ship should have been silenced, or that no political party should have offered a referendum?

"We should not be ruled by referendum" - it's a point of view but Parliament decided otherwise.

"It's democracy" might be described as a whine or as fair comment. Given the very clear path of events from manifesto promise through the initial vote to hold the referendum leading to the Leave result, I'd strongly suggest that fair comment is the right answer.

It's arguable that Cameron was unwise to offer the referendum but it was a choice he and his party decided to go with. The democratic validity of the process though has been pretty transparent.

As a general point to all Remainers, I trawled the net for all of 90 seconds and came across half a dozen groups campaigning organising / lobbying for a "Rejoin the E U' agenda.

We were offered a referendum because the trumped up fears of immigration by the further right were causing Tories to worry. They hoped this would appease them. The average citizen of this country is not in a position to make an educated and rational decision on something so complex. That's why we elect MPs.
MPs are still well within their rights to reject the referendum.

 

[JammyP]

We were offered a referendum because the trumped up fears of immigration by the further right were causing Tories to worry. They hoped this would appease them. The average citizen of this country is not in a position to make an educated and rational decision on something so complex. That's why we elect MPs.
MPs are still well within their rights to reject the referendum.

Spot on. Other parties do not suddenly stop putting forward alternative policies just because a Tory majority was elected.

 

[1966efc]

We were offered a referendum because the trumped up fears of immigration by the further right were causing Tories to worry

With good cause. Ukip had 'won' the European election a shortish time before the Tories started serious General Election planning.

The average citizen of this country is not in a position to make an educated and rational decision on something so complex.

Noone can have detailed knowledge about an event which hasn't happened before. Given that the E U had become major bone of contention, some response other than, e.g., "You're all too damn stupid to know what you're talking about," was needed. The electorate chose to elect the Tories rather than Labour which had promised not to hold a referendum.

That's why we elect MPs.
MPs are still well within their rights to reject the referendum.

Perhaps they were*. Given the 75% majority that Remainers hold in the Commons, it's remarkable that they voted overwhelmingly to hold a referendum and twice this week to give the PM the power to revoke A50. The fact that they did suggests they have some respect for the power of the ballot box.

* There was a lot of talk about Burke's dictum re delegate / representative. Logic indicates that by agreeing to a referendum, M Ps effectvely gave up their right to represent, and agreed to become simply delegates of the public will.

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Continuing effects from 2008 financial crisis and the realignment of wealth to China India etc. It's why we have stepped to the right. Protectism is a default safe ground position for the right and further into that side of the political spectrum, people will naturally follow this part of the spectrum when feeling threatened on multiple fronts. Generally British politics is very good at swollowing and then sanitising extreme views.

 

[peteblue]

Where is this war going to be fought then?

On twitter I imagine.....