Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by ConstantOgler

btw Wendigo's link to that Parl site reveals some fools/knaves now working on a "draft Constitution". Paid by you to do this?! You know they know UK already has a great constitution, so WTF?

Academics and 'intellectuals' have been talking about this for years, I remember our University Lecturers promoting the 'Charter 88' reform agenda. Many Labour politicians signed up for it but the problem is once someone has this unfettered constitutional power they seem to like it and unfortunately like Blair abuse it. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The chances of any such reform are now zero all the time the Tories are in power and Brexit taking up all Parliamentary time and energy. It won't be until another Suez/Iraq War debacle happens that most will even consider it.

Most Brits live in a state of ignorance about the constitution and that suits those in power perfectly.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by bloke57

Which is largely owned by non-English people. Odd that!

Yes, I know. But as a resume of many English posts I read so far it's bought and mostly believed by the English citizens.

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

Yes, I know. But as a resume of many English posts I read so far it's bought and mostly believed by the English citizens.

Our problem in a nutshell Puh. Could not agree more.

[Brecht]

Originally Posted by bloke57

We've had to deal with freedom for eight centuries whereas you're "constitution" only goes back to 1993....following a series of others that were all presumably considered immutable.

Yeah! That went well.

The Soviet Constitution from 1936 was the most democratic and most progressive at the time. The people of the USSR were granted rights that the people in the West, especially workers, could only dream of. Unfortunately much of those rights that were granted to Soviet citizens by their constitution were not respected by the state. By the way, the Soviet Union had three constitutions during its existence: one from 1924, one from 1936 and the last from 1977 that remained in effect until 1993.

And since you mentioned your press being owned by foreigners. That tells you a lot about the so-called freedom of press in our Western societies. It doesn't matter whether your media is owned by foreigners or natives. It's owned by a small group of billionaires, each of them owning a number of papers, radio and TV stations, which allows them to spread their propaganda masked as free press. This is why the Western propaganda model is much more effective than that of authoritarian states because the latter is so obvious and easy to expose. But here in the West it managed to convince people that they have something like a free press.

Sure, you can establish your own paper and raise your voice against this system but you're not going to survive against the huge corporate media complex because you lack the capital you need to reach a wide audience. And not to mention that no one's want to advertize in your paper if you're too critical of the system. The only hope is the internet but for how long?

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by Brecht

The Soviet Constitution from 1936 was the most democratic and most progressive at the time. The people of the USSR were granted rights that the people in the West, especially workers, could only dream of. Unfortunately much of those rights that were granted to Soviet citizens by their constitution were not respected by the state.

Precisely - which is why I wonder why so many people set so much store by a written constitution. In fact sometimes it can become so set in stone that it becomes a millstone to progress.

Look at the much vaunted "right to bear arms". What use is that? Only pandas have opposable thumbs...

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by bloke57

Our problem in a nutshell Puh. Could not agree more.

Thanks !

But you haven't had a report by Günter Wallraff with "Der Aufmacher" (= The Lead Story/the Teaser) or a novel by Heinrich Böll with "Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum" (= The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum).

[palo5]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

Your quite right in this point, but sorry - that's democracy (the result).

Actually, it isn't democracy

Only 30% or so of the electorate voted for it. And in any case, to change a Constitution in such a radical way, you need a super-majority of at least 60%. Almost every state on earth recognizes that

Ok, I know England is centuries behind the times, doesn't have a real Constitution, and has trouble understanding democracy with its rigged electoral system

But if Brexit doesn't teach them a serious lesson... well, you know...

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by palo5

you noodle.

Personal abuse ? Or a term of endearment?

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by palo5

Actually, it isn't democracy.

Ok, I know England is centuries behind the times, doesn't have a real Constitution, and has trouble understanding democracy with its rigged electoral system

But if Brexit doesn't teach them a serious lesson... well, you know...

The Russian Constitution 1917 to 2017:-

[palo5]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

Personal abuse ? Or a term of endearment?

Not abuse. I don't know if friendly ridicule is the right term, but does it fit?