The Political Thread

[Goaty]

It's all a fucking joke. A year after Brexit, we got weak government.

[IndigoPrime]

Not entirely sure that May is offering EU citizens the rights they currently have.  She said 'the same as UK citizens'.  Worth remembering that there is no such thing.  We are all subjects of the crown.

Neither of those are entirely accurate. Although British people are technically subjects of the crown, the status of British Subject and British Citizen are not the same. (My family had first-hand experience of this, when trying to send my grandparents of Irish descent to the USA. When it turned out they had British Subject passports, they were not allowed to board, and we had to jump through a number of extra visa hoops.)

As for the offer, it's little different from what exists now. If someone's been legally here for five years, they have indefinite right to remain, access healthcare, and so on. However, what May is offering now actually falls short of existing rights regarding things like family unification. And beyond that, there is no word on things like the heathcare insurance issue that affects hundreds of thousands of EU nationals. Also, it's certainly not the same as British citizens, given that EU nationals who get this status will not have the right to vote, for example.

[The Legendary Shark]

We are all subjects of the crown.

I'm not. I am subject only to Nature, Common Law and myself.

[Jim_Campbell]

I'm not. I am subject only to Nature, Common Law and myself.

Break some laws. See how that works out for you.

[Steven Denton]

You're right, IP, I'm not under that threat but I'm not insensitive to your family's situation.

My point, as ever, is that government has only the rights we give it. I do not and will never support government to deport anybody in your wife's situation. Period. I do not have the right to order her out of the country and neither does anyone else. I'm pretty certain that nobody here wants your wife deported either but the sad fact is that anyone who supports government's superhuman rights is enabling them in this threat.

If enough people tell them too, the government wouldn't deport people previously welcomed into the country. That's why we vote. Unfortunately the majority of people seem to be more than OK with mass deportation. which is why we argue, protest and petition as well as vote.

Saying I don't like this government is not the same as saying I don't like governments in any shape or form. Accepting the need for government is not the same as accepting or supporting the actions of any government irrespective of what that act is. Saying if you support this then you support that is often poor reasoning/argument. 

[The Legendary Shark]

I'm not. I am subject only to Nature, Common Law and myself.

Break some laws. See how that works out for you.

[Jim_Campbell]

I'm not. I am subject only to Nature, Common Law and myself.

I would suggest that you don't get to choose which laws apply to you and if you choose to break some laws not covered by your nebulous notion of 'common law' you will find that you are still very much subject to those laws.

[The Legendary Shark]

If enough people tell them too, the government wouldn't deport people previously welcomed into the country. That's why we vote. Unfortunately the majority of people seem to be more than OK with mass deportation. which is why we argue, protest and petition as well as vote.

Saying I don't like this government is not the same as saying I don't like governments in any shape or form. Accepting the need for government is not the same as accepting or supporting the actions of any government irrespective of what that act is. Saying if you support this then you support that is often poor reasoning/argument. 

Like when a million people marched to protest the Iraq War, the instigation of which transpired to be based on lies but went ahead anyway?

It's the superhuman rights governments assume that I dislike, rights you and I do not have and so, logically, cannot delegate to others. Neither you or I have the right to order Mrs IP out of the country, so even if we both voted for Mrs May, how do we authorise her to do something neither of us can? That's not poor reasoning. What is poor reasoning is believing Mrs May when she says she has the right to deport Mrs IP because we voted her into the position of Prime Minister.

[The Legendary Shark]

I would suggest that you don't get to choose which laws apply to you and if you choose to break some laws not covered by your nebulous notion of 'common law' you will find that you are still very much subject to those laws.

I assume you're talking about legislation, which is law which applies with the consent of the governed, rather than common or natural law, which applies to everyone equally.

I was once arrested for possession of cannabis (a legislative law) but because I refused to sign a form accepting the charge (despite police pressure), that charge never got to court.

If I was to cause someone actual harm (against common or natural law) refusing to accept the charge would not matter in the slightest.

[sheridan]

I'm not. I am subject only to Nature, Common Law and myself.

Break some laws. See how that works out for you.

As was detailed in the shark blog...

[Smith]

A truly fascinating read.

[Steven Denton]

If enough people tell them too, the government wouldn't deport people previously welcomed into the country. That's why we vote. Unfortunately the majority of people seem to be more than OK with mass deportation. which is why we argue, protest and petition as well as vote.

Saying I don't like this government is not the same as saying I don't like governments in any shape or form. Accepting the need for government is not the same as accepting or supporting the actions of any government irrespective of what that act is. Saying if you support this then you support that is often poor reasoning/argument. 

Like when a million people marched to protest the Iraq War, the instigation of which transpired to be based on lies but went ahead anyway?

It's the superhuman rights governments assume that I dislike, rights you and I do not have and so, logically, cannot delegate to others. Neither you or I have the right to order Mrs IP out of the country, so even if we both voted for Mrs May, how do we authorise her to do something neither of us can? That's not poor reasoning. What is poor reasoning is believing Mrs May when she says she has the right to deport Mrs IP because we voted her into the position of Prime Minister.

Yes, like the Iraq War protests that at the time represented a minority but has come to define the way we view both the war and Tony Blair's legacy. It didn't stop the war but it certainly reduced the UK's appetite for war.

I don't think the Prime Minister has the power to decide which individuals are deported even if she took a particular dislike to them. we have a structure that prevents that kind of power sitting with one person. so yes arguing that May has the right to deport people would be factually incorrect.

Demonstrably we both have a portion of power via a vote. we can chose to alight our potion of that power with others or not by voting or not. if enough people aligned their portions of power the outcome of that vote will have a direct real world consequence.

Proposing that if we do not individually have the same powers as the collective (the state) in there entirety, then we can cannot transfer those powers to the state thus the state can not have that power is an argument I have seen you foreword a number of times. It starts with an incorrect proposition and then builds around it, that's why its poor reasoning. It's been discussed at length on this thread before.

[The Legendary Shark]

The UK's appetite for war is irrelevant if it's force-fed - recently we've been  involved in conflicts in Afghanistan, Syria, Nigeria, Lybia, Yemen and Somalia and of course the wider "War on Terror." Then there's the UK's
annual ~£17bn income from being the second largest arms dealer on the planet. So, while I agree with you that the average person has little appetite for war, the elites and their puppets are veritable gluttons for conflict and the business opportunities that go with it. Whichever colour rosettes happen to be residing in Downing Street make no difference to this situation.

It is noteworthy that Blair tried to use the Common Law, albeit a twisted version of it, to begin hostilities by claiming that Iraq presented a clear and present threat to the UK. Most people would agree with the Common Law position that violence is only valid in self-defence and that the instigation of violence for most other reasons is wrong, which is why he tried to present the invasion of Iraq as a defensive move. Most people fundamentally understand what's right and what's wrong without necessarily being able to put it into words.

You are correct that a Prime Minister is unlikely to sit in his or her office arbitrarily deciding which individuals to deport and the way I presented my argument falsely suggested that this was indeed what Mrs May would be doing. It is far more likely that she would drive legislation through Parliament, setting up a committee or department to identify and evict subjects, thereby giving the process a veneer of legitimacy.

The act of voting is little more than a popularity contest which changes very little of real consequence. A change of governing party does not stop wars, reverse unpopular legislation or reform the monetary system but can have a direct and real effect on the decorations used in Number 10.

Your final assertion, that the individual has less power than the state is entirely correct but not what I'm saying. I'm talking about rights (and responsibilities), not powers. No human being has greater rights than another - nobody has the right to arbitrarily force their will on another person simply because they've won a popularity contest. They (government members) do, however, have the power (via the apparatus of the state) to enforce their will on others, which is a different thing entirely. This is simply the application of "might is right" and the ultimate expression of a circular argument: why must we do this? Because I said so.

[Steven Denton]

The UK's appetite for war is irrelevant if it's force-fed - recently we've been  involved in conflicts in Afghanistan, Syria, Nigeria, Lybia, Yemen and Somalia and of course the wider "War on Terror." Then there's the UK's
annual ~£17bn income from being the second largest arms dealer on the planet. So, while I agree with you that the average person has little appetite for war, the elites and their puppets are veritable gluttons for conflict and the business opportunities that go with it. Whichever colour rosettes happen to be residing in Downing Street make no difference to this situation.

Some elements of this I agree with. However it's been harder for 'hawks' to get parliamentary support for military action then it was and the fact we are massive arms dealers is one of the popular arguments for change forwarded by the left. New Labour was very similar to the Conservatives, post Corbyn Labour not so much. It's not always been the case that it made no difference who was in power and it looks like it's no longer the case again.

You are correct that a Prime Minister is unlikely to sit in his or her office arbitrarily deciding which individuals to deport and the way I presented my argument falsely suggested that this was indeed what Mrs May would be doing. It is far more likely that she would drive legislation through Parliament, setting up a committee or department to identify and evict subjects, thereby giving the process a veneer of legitimacy.

Whatever legislation makes it through parliament will be legal, legitimate and anathema to my beliefs. This I think is where we seriously diverge. I disagree totally with the direction our country is taking but I think it represents a majority view, it will be constrained by both domestic and international law so although it will be a appalling dick move if won't be an atrocity and I hope before long we come to our collective senses and undo all the damage we are currently inflicting on ourselves. 

The act of voting is little more than a popularity contest which changes very little of real consequence. A change of governing party does not stop wars, reverse unpopular legislation or reform the monetary system but can have a direct and real effect on the decorations used in Number 10.

There are two points here. Voting is of consequence. It can stop wars although ending a conflict can take tame and is rarely the end of a commitment. It can change legislation (as can protest). It may change the monetary system, although that's a lot harder as it's a massively complex global house of cards. Changes are not often hugely dramatic or sweeping. They are far more likely to take time and be implemented incrementally. It's far easier to view social changes in hindsight.

Your final assertion, that the individual has less power than the state is entirely correct but not what I'm saying. I'm talking about rights (and responsibilities), not powers. No human being has greater rights than another - nobody has the right to arbitrarily force their will on another person simply because they've won a popularity contest. They (government members) do, however, have the power (via the apparatus of the state) to enforce their will on others, which is a different thing entirely. This is simply the application of "might is right" and the ultimate expression of a circular argument: why must we do this? Because I said so.

Rights are a social construct.

[Modern Panther]

I was once arrested for possession of cannabis (a legislative law) but because I refused to sign a form accepting the charge (despite police pressure), that charge never got to court.

I can pretty much guarantee that your refusal to accept that you were being charged is not the reason the charge didn't go to court.  Oh, and the very idea that government has authority, law enforcement exists and legislation should be followed is, surely, an important aspect of common law.