The Political Thread

[JayzusB.Christ]

Anybody else think it's strange that there's a page of discussion on IP on the Political Thread at the same time that the news has been taken over with reports on the Supreme Court deliberating and the beginning of the conference season?

I am honestly grateful to you for changing the subject. 

So, Johnson's decision to act like a fucking megalomaniacal dictator has been ruled illegal. There's hope for the UK yet.  But... five weeks left.

I'm on my holidays in Tenerife, though, so feck it, eh? Long may I be allowed to travel here without a Visa. Don't mean to rub it in, but looking at what Britain could well lose makes me appreciate what we still have.

[Professor Bear]

When I see actual consequences for what he's done, then I might get excited, but as far as I'm concerned all this is just more distraction for which Johnson will not suffer any reprisals because his kind never do, meanwhile the political classes shall go about dismantling the welfare state and killing brown people in faraway lands while we all pontificate about Brexit.
Brexit is a slight of hand.  If it didn't exist, they'd have to create it, and I am not convinced this fucking thing will ever end.

[shaolin_monkey]

Really? I thought it was Trump that was slight of hand?












I'll get my coat.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Really? I thought it was Trump that was slight of hand?












I'll get my coat.

Well played, sir.

[Professor Bear]

You stupid Remain bastards were fools to ever doubt we'd be okay.

[CalHab]

Apparently half of our media think that the government should be able to act outside the law and courts should not be allowed to hold them to account:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers

We are so f*cked.

[The Legendary Shark]

All the government has to do is write down what it wants in legislation or an act and then call it law. Legislation can be good for guidance, as in H&S, but calling it law is fundamentally nonsense. It's the main power they should be stripped of, in my opinion.

[TordelBack]

Just watched your Attorney General in full flow in the HoC, essentially contradicting your Supreme Court who ruled that parliament should sit, in the name of the "17.4 million", and not, say, the law of the land. Your Attorney General, mind, who is responsible for legal advice to the government, which was ruled to be incorrect. I do believe your democracy is fecked.

[JayzusB.Christ]

It's the main power they should be stripped of, in my opinion.

WHAT?
I had no idea you felt that way!


Sorry, couldn't resist.

[The Legendary Shark]

I know - I am very shy and retiring

[Funt Solo]

Legislation can be good for guidance, as in H&S, but calling it law is fundamentally nonsense.

Except that that's how laws get made. So we might replace "fundamentally nonsense" in this sentence with "actually how things work."

[The Legendary Shark]

It's rule by decree, not law. Law is made slowly, over time, by arbitrators and judges, who hear disputes then discover the law, make their decisions and write them down to guide future judgements.

When governments took over this process, they began co-opting such decisions and writing them into legislation, as if they had created them (but usually with additions which basically read "except us and our agents"), to add a veneer of verisimilitude. Now they can slip in anything they want and pretend it's law and the people believe it.

[Dandontdare]

So who gives judges the authority to make/enforce those rulings, or to be a judge in the first place? At least politicians are elected

[TordelBack]

Again Sharky's argument seems to hinge on a philosophical and practical objection to delegating authority. New laws (okay, 'legislation') are made by parliament (not, please note, government - bills have to pass both houses), which is (or should be) the democratically elected representatives of the country: this is the first delegation of our individual responsibility, one based on the need for a mechanism of large-scale decision making.

The legal expertise of an independent judiciary both assesses whether these laws are compatible with existing law, and interprets them in practice. (And in a sane country with reference to a written constitution). This is a second delegation, one based on expertise that most of us lack

This seems to be a good balance between democratic will, long precedent and the expertise of formal training and experience. Of course there are awful errors and biases, but hey, humans.

There's no need for this to be exclusive to the nation state. The same basic structure could be applied at almost any social scale.

[The Legendary Shark]

Let's have a look at this. There are about 950 Mps and peers, which means that society is ruled by roughly 0.004% of the population. Okay, fair enough, greater numbers would just get unwieldy so I'll assume people are more or less happy with this ratio and accept it as legitimate that these 950 can pass "laws" that apply to us all.

This forum of 2000AD fans has 25176 members. Let's say we decide to hold an election amongst ourselves. We can't use the same ratio, obviously, because that would mean we'd need less than one person, so let's be uber democratic and elect five "MPs" from amongst us. Those of us who bother to vote, anyway.

Those five decide, three to two, to order 2000AD to print two Judge Dredd stories every week or face fines or imprisonment.

It's the same basic democratic process, so it must be reasonable, no?