[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
lou21 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
lou21 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
In the UK there is a full parlimentary debate over whether terrorism suspects should be able to be held for 42 days without charge (up from 28.) This debate is happening in the open by elected officials.
I don’t give a monkeys that they didn’t get their 42 days. They still got their 4 weeks. It was 24 hours not so long ago! Getting to know why you are being held is one of the most basic tenets of our society and it was removed so quickly with barely a murmur of protest. What will they take away next?
I agree with you, my point was that it happened in the open by elected officials which is in contradiction to what Sifu implied.
Yes we voted them in. BUT we did not foresee them taking these extreme steps. I would have hoped that before one of my most basic rights was removed I could at least vote on it.
(Unfortunately I don’t doubt that the majority of British people would have ratified the terrorism act. Which makes me very sad.)
Then what you do is you vote them out at the next election and you make sure that you do a bit better background check on the person that you vote in.[/quote]
Now how is that going to do any good? Unless there is intervention by the Queen or some scandal (ie Megrahi) which brings down the government, the next election will not happen until May 2010. By then the EU constitution will have come into force and transferred Westminsters remaining soveriegnty to Brussels.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
lou21 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
lou21 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
In the UK there is a full parlimentary debate over whether terrorism suspects should be able to be held for 42 days without charge (up from 28.) This debate is happening in the open by elected officials.
I don’t give a monkeys that they didn’t get their 42 days. They still got their 4 weeks. It was 24 hours not so long ago! Getting to know why you are being held is one of the most basic tenets of our society and it was removed so quickly with barely a murmur of protest. What will they take away next?
I agree with you, my point was that it happened in the open by elected officials which is in contradiction to what Sifu implied.
Yes we voted them in. BUT we did not foresee them taking these extreme steps. I would have hoped that before one of my most basic rights was removed I could at least vote on it.
(Unfortunately I don’t doubt that the majority of British people would have ratified the terrorism act. Which makes me very sad.)
Then what you do is you vote them out at the next election and you make sure that you do a bit better background check on the person that you vote in.
Now how is that going to do any good? Unless there is intervention by the Queen or some scandal (ie Megrahi) which brings down the government, the next election will not happen until May 2010. By then the EU constitution will have come into force and transferred Westminsters remaining soveriegnty to Brussels.[/quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
lou21 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Oi vie! My point had nothing to do with the particulars of the fox hunting ban. I was making a comparison over the response to some really trivial bullshit (cute furry rodents) versus the most important issue of the day which is a new constitution which noone wants and the complete loss of sovereignty to an authoritarian government that noone wants.
It didn’t have to be fox hunting, it could have been any one of the of trendy causes that the British get all worked up over because some actor, actress or musician told them to.
Just because the EU constitution doesn’t tug at Bono’s heart strings it doesn’t meant that it isn’t extremely important.
The hunting ban was always just a load of bull. It kept Parliament tied up so none of the MPs could think about a private members bill without knowing it would get talked out due to lack of time and generally kept the public busy thinking about something other than how terribly the country is run. I guess Labour were gutted when it actually went through they have to find other ways to distract people now.
The ban was never really about the animals (which need to be killed anyway) but was and is about attacking a perceived toff activity.
I understand it was a throw back to class warfare and all that. My point really wasn’t about fox hunting, I was just using it as an example of how the British will get work up about trivial bullshit while ignoring the the really important stuff.
You are right it was a distraction, which was my point. The British are distracted by minor bullshit and ignoring what is really important. [/quote]
You could change British for People in your post and be spot on. This is not a British thing, it is a first world thing.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
You are right it was a distraction, which was my point. The British are distracted by minor bullshit and ignoring what is really important.
You could change British for People in your post and be spot on. This is not a British thing, it is a first world thing.[/quote]
Blue is right.
Sifu’s argument seems to be a rather incoherent collection of scary stories. I’m not sure what the EU Constitution has to do with stiletto-wielding attackers. It is a bad, ludicrous document which should have been given up after all those failed referendums.
But it’s day-to-day impact on life in Europe will not be very great: the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty - and others - were much more far-reaching.
We have a general election within a year. Then we will see whether the worm has turned. I’m not desparately optimistic, myself: but democratic processes are the best available option.