DS Forums

 
 

Gina Miller hates democracy


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2017, 20:48
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,481
Why do some people think that screaming "democracy" means that the law can be ignored?
It's easier to scream a slogan (especially if it's just one word) than think.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-01-2017, 21:01
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Was I being rude?

I was simply questioning what I saw as some random 'made up' figure. The whole campaign (and incidentally US election) seems to have been fought on lies and half truths.

Is challenging an opinion considered rude?
It was a particularly poor example to pick to invent numbers for. The translation service has been privatised and rates for freelance translators (who didn't turn up in Porsches before) have been cut.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 21:09
chavet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,344
It was a particularly poor example to pick to invent numbers for. The translation service has been privatised and rates for freelance translators (who didn't turn up in Porsches before) have been cut.
Was there any point in me explaining that the figure came from an employee of the department in question? Or underlining that Brexit, etc., was affected by the feeling that sometimes people just aren't listening?
chavet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 22:27
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Was there any point in me explaining that the figure came from an employee of the department in question? Or underlining that Brexit, etc., was affected by the feeling that sometimes people just aren't listening?
Or that Brexit was affected by people making figures up.

Edit: I see enough people on here can't even relay what I've said properly and that's in writing so I have little faith in unsubstantiated Chinese whispers.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 22:47
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
Yes but you also recall some bizarre Chinese style one child policy in your education too.
Not quite, I do recall the specific planet saving initiative in the 60s and 70s when many took the warnings of Ehrlich seriously. That was Prof Ehrlich so he had a certain expertise.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 22:51
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
Why do some people think that screaming "democracy" means that the law can be ignored?
Largely because the law exists only through the democratic consensus of the electorate.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:05
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Not quite, I do recall the specific planet saving initiative in the 60s and 70s when many took the warnings of Ehrlich seriously. That was Prof Ehrlich so he had a certain expertise.
Funny then that none of the childless couples I know are that way with any concern for the environment at all.

And funny that you are opposed to one of the best population control measures, allowing poor people to migrate to richer countries where their birthrate falls rapidly.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:23
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
Funny then that none of the childless couples I know are that way with any concern for the environment at all.

And funny that you are opposed to one of the best population control measures, allowing poor people to migrate to richer countries where their birthrate falls rapidly.
Who knows who you know? All I said was that this was a common subject of debate, especially in schools, at the time and population control went hand in hand with the new, and various, methods of controlling family size. It was pitched as a planet saving initiative.
The problem with lots of poor people migrating to rich countries is that it is one or two generations before that lower birthrate kicks in and if it is to be effective one would have to invite most of the poor countries in with devastating effect on the host nations With of course after several more generations little impact on the poor countries.
Approx every generation the population of Pakistan doubles yet it is one of the world's leading manpower exporters.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:38
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,481
Largely because the law exists only through the democratic consensus of the electorate.
I know that looks like a sentence using english words.
But what does it actually mean?
The law exists in fact because from time immemorial people at the top have decided what the laws should be and have constructed systems to enforce them.
The law existed before democracy was a twinkle in the eye of the first voter.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:47
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,071
Who knows who you know? All I said was that this was a common subject of debate, especially in schools, at the time and population control went hand in hand with the new, and various, methods of controlling family size. It was pitched as a planet saving initiative.
.
You are correct. In the 60s/70s The Population Bomb was a book much discussed, and taken very seriously. It had dire warnings of future mass starvation due to over population. The answer given was to limit the family to replacement levels. No more than 2 children!
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:51
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
I know that looks like a sentence using english words.
But what does it actually mean?
The law exists in fact because from time immemorial people at the top have decided what the laws should be and have constructed systems to enforce them.
The law existed before democracy was a twinkle in the eye of the first voter.
From time immemorial many of the poor broke the law and had no respect for it. The fact that parliament makes the laws is based on the premise that the electorate as a whole agree they have the right to do so. This has broken down many times in the past the most recent example being the poll tax riots where the new law was opposed by just too many to make the law, and law it was, a workable proposition. Even democratically elected governments have to consider the ongoing views of the electorate from time to time.
That situation has been enforced from below and through the democratic process.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 23:54
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
You are correct. In the 60s/70s The Population Bomb was a book much discussed, and taken very seriously. It had dire warnings of future mass starvation due to over population. The answer given was to limit the family to replacement levels. No more than 2 children!
Thank you. The trick was just to replace yourself with a few couples having an extra one for luck.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 05:09
kidspud
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,490
You are correct. In the 60s/70s The Population Bomb was a book much discussed, and taken very seriously. It had dire warnings of future mass starvation due to over population. The answer given was to limit the family to replacement levels. No more than 2 children!
I'm not sure I would say it was 'much discussed ' and most of its predictions did not come true, which the author himself has admitted.
kidspud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 08:39
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,071
I'm not sure I would say it was 'much discussed ' and most of its predictions did not come true, which the author himself has admitted.
None of the predictions came true, as far as I am aware. Shows the dangers of believing predictions from "experts" - you might as well read horoscopes.

Most people do stop at two children, though. Maybe the message has subliminally percolated through.

As for "much discussed", it was discussed among my acquaintance, and I'm sure there was a fair bit of media attention. Maybe I noticed it more because I was interested in the subject, having reached the age when having children was very much on my agenda.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 09:46
Mr Moritz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 806
It's easier to scream a slogan (especially if it's just one word) than think.
I can't see the problem in our parliament exercising due diligence re the democratic process of Article 50, isn't that part of the 'taking back control' slogan?

Prior to the High Court ruling their argument was that Britain was losing its sovereignty, and even its democracy, by being part of the European Union, echoing Boris Johnson's view that EU membership is incompatible with parliamentary sovereignty.

It's interesting observing the same posters reinventing themselves as Scholars of jurisprudence to denounce the court ruling re parliamentary involvement.

Which brings me back to Ms Miller, all she has done is use the wealth of case law some dating back to the English Civil wars to show that Parliament must be legally and democratically involved in the process.

It's now down to the Supreme court, either way we will be leaving, it really boils down to whether the Supreme court believe that the electorate deserve a transparent process or they don't.
Mr Moritz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 10:31
smudges dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort William
Posts: 22,269
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/ind...at-britain.pdf

It will be interesting to see whether the mSupreme Court takes into account the differences between Scottish and English law. It's a long read, but could really throw the cat amongst the pigeons.
smudges dad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 12:47
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Thank you. The trick was just to replace yourself with a few couples having an extra one for luck.
And if we'd all had 2 children as you were apparently taught there would be no need for immigration to provide services for us as we age. But we didn't so there is.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:23
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,481
And if we'd all had 2 children as you were apparently taught there would be no need for immigration to provide services for us as we age. But we didn't so there is.
Nah.
Just blame the immigrants. Easier.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:35
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
And if we'd all had 2 children as you were apparently taught there would be no need for immigration to provide services for us as we age. But we didn't so there is.

Well, apparently, I was not on my own being taught that. The thing is we were taught specifically that the world was over populated. The reasons why the birthrate dropped below 2 are many, varied and complex but being taught that the world was over populated and saving the planet was linked to the number of children we had certainly had an input. For some reason you think that people being told erroneous facts as regards the EU will influence their voting intentions sufficiently to swing a referendum but being subjected to low level save the planet, birth control, small families information over many years will not influence people at all seems rather hypocritical.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:39
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
Nah.
Just blame the immigrants. Easier.
Very few here blame immigrants, many blame high levels of immigration and the lack of the ability of our Government to control it and even the seeming unwillingness of the Government to control it. Can you see the difference between blaming immigrants and blaming high levels of immigration? You do not blame water for a flood, you blame the lack of control of that water.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:41
Blairdennon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12,746
I'm not sure I would say it was 'much discussed ' and most of its predictions did not come true, which the author himself has admitted.
Did not alter the fact it was a doomsday scenario at the time and it was widely believed.
Blairdennon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:44
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,071
deleted
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:00
andykn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
Well, apparently, I was not on my own being taught that. The thing is we were taught specifically that the world was over populated. The reasons why the birthrate dropped below 2 are many, varied and complex but being taught that the world was over populated and saving the planet was linked to the number of children we had certainly had an input. For some reason you think that people being told erroneous facts as regards the EU will influence their voting intentions sufficiently to swing a referendum but being subjected to low level save the planet, birth control, small families information over many years will not influence people at all seems rather hypocritical.
As another poster said, two children was the benchmark.

No-one childless I know was influenced at all by overpopulation.
andykn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:27
Eurostar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 51,606
Very few here blame immigrants, many blame high levels of immigration and the lack of the ability of our Government to control it and even the seeming unwillingness of the Government to control it. Can you see the difference between blaming immigrants and blaming high levels of immigration? You do not blame water for a flood, you blame the lack of control of that water.
The government might not be able to "control immigration" after Brexit, particularly given its position as a major economy and a post colonial power. This could well turn out to be one of the great fallacies and falsehoods of the referendum. Saying 'membership of EU = out of control immigration : leave the EU = controlled immigration" seems incredibly simplistic.
Eurostar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:37
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,071
The government might not be able to "control immigration" after Brexit, particularly given its position as a major economy and a post colonial power. This could well turn out to be one of the great fallacies and falsehoods of the referendum. Saying 'membership of EU = out of control immigration : leave the EU = controlled immigration" seems incredibly simplistic.
What would stop them?
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:07.