British politics

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
How can Mr Khan be a Muslim when he votes for Gay marriage and wishes to lift sanctions against Israel?

What's his stance on the veil? Women should be free to wear it or not to? Well that's okay (even though forced veil is actually pretty rare in Europe).

In my opinion he's not Muslim. It's just a label. He does not respect Islamic values, period. Otherwise he would not be a member of the Labour Party.

The way I see it is that London is more multi-ethnic than multicultural. There are different communities but they all observe one and the same culture, namely mass consumption !!

I'm reading books about Canada these days and I would remind you that in Canada the French settlers were there to form alliance with Amerindians, trade with them and marry their women. You, British, were there to conquer the lands and your ancestors there considered Amerindians as sub-humans. That's why all but one Amerindian confederations were fighting against you, siding with the French (especially during the French & Indian War). So I don't think you are really that multikulti...
 
I am not from British ancestry at all, so that's not that relevant to me. I just live here. Multi-ethnic is a fair comment, but there also quite a few cultures, or at least parts of cultures around London.

The Qur'an is open to many interpretations, as is any religious text. Especially as they often contradict themselves throughout. I'm not really sure about his stance on the veil, I imagine it's a 'wear it if you like' stance. On gay marriage, I'm glad he voted for it. One of the things I'm pretty dogmatic about is gay marriage. I know it's a sin to be gay in some texts but it's a natural thing in reality. Look at bonobos and chimps and the like, from which we evoluted. A lot of them have sex with their own gender. If you look at the Greek times when there was less pressure to nut be gay, a lot of people were. It's something religious texts have got very wrong, IMO. He is a liberal Muslim: he still believes in Allah, practices but does not obey every rule in the Qur'an.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
7
0
Echoes said:
How can Mr Khan be a Muslim when he votes for Gay marriage and wishes to lift sanctions against Israel?
I don't know, perhaps following a religion doesn't mean adhering to every single precept.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
CheckMyPecs said:
Echoes said:
How can Mr Khan be a Muslim when he votes for Gay marriage and wishes to lift sanctions against Israel?
I don't know, perhaps following a religion doesn't mean adhering to every single precept.
i think it is NOT a matter of adhering but interpreting. take almost any text and you will find various interpretations. take for instance such formal and well-thought-out (and supposedly impassioned) texts as written laws...many think they adhere to the laws but the army of lawyers would not exist if it was universally so.

an emotional area like a religion is much more interpretive...

i could mistaken, but your comment seems to imply that there is something inherently wrong with islam. if so, i do'nt agree.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Maxiton said:
Echoes said:
In every member state of the EU, the EU itself should be the key topic because they are imposing their measures on us, in a dictatorial way. Employment, health or taxes all depend on the EU commission. They dictate.

Changing Europe into a more social institution is just a dream. Europe cannot be any different to what it is. If you want to change the treaties, you need the unanimity of all 28 member states. How can you ever think that 28 governments might one day agree on one common policy. It's absurd. Besides the fact that each member state has their particular national interest, it is impossible to think that Finland which has a huge tradition of liberalism might some day agree with France, which is traditionally more social. When the French elected a so-called "socialist" president to succeed a so-called "conservative" one, the Spaniard did the exact opposite with their Prime Ministers. It's a been like a Rubik's Cube.

The Euro governments have no more power, the Commission has the upper hand. They decide and the governments obey. Already in 1962, General De Gaulle realised that it was impossible for European nations to have a common policy and he assumed that there should be an external federator, a federator that would not be European and which has a policy that would govern us. He did not say who this federator was but we all understood that it was the United States of America!

Can we imagine France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg being prepared on a matter of importance to them in the national or international sphere, to do something that appeared wrong to them, merely because others had ordered them to do so? Would the peoples of France, of Germany, of Italy, of the Netherlands, of Belgium or of Luxembourg ever dream of submitting to laws passed by foreign parliamentarians if such laws ran counter to their deepest convictions? Clearly not. It is impossible nowadays for a foreign majority to impose their will on reluctant nations. It is true, perhaps, that in this 'integrated' Europe as it is called there might be no policy at all. This would simplify a great many things. Indeed, once there was no France, no Europe; once there was no policy - since one could not be imposed on each of the six states, attempts to formulate a policy would cease. But then, perhaps, these peoples would follow in the wake of some outsider who had a policy. There would, perhaps, be a federator, but he would not be European. And Europe would not be an integrated Europe but something vaster by far and, I repeat, with a federator.
https://books.google.be/books?id=5uKGAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=de+gaulle+%22i+repeat+a+federator%22&source=bl&ots=MN7ezkCrGP&sig=uUk_81QkUzl25BfpaIGxX3OEdEY&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP_aO_7sfMAhXMDsAKHVZgAdIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=de%20gaulle%20%22i%20repeat%20a%20federator%22&f=false
If the EU is to survive, and be viable (in every sense), it has to be democratized. The European Commission has to become a body of elected representatives from each country, or it has to be replaced by such a body. Maybe there needs to be two bodies, or two houses, for greater checks and balances. One of those bodies could consist of elected representatives, and the other of people appointed according to their expertise.
Firstly, Echoes' argument is internally inconsistent.
1) The governments will never agree unanimously, so true change is impossible.
2) The commission is dictatorial and much more powerful than the governments.
There's no way that makes sense.

Secondly, I've thought about the democatisation of the EU a lot, and I've come to the conclusion that the only option is a directly elected President as well as root-and-branch reform.
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Cannibal72 said:
I've thought about the democatisation of the EU a lot, and I've come to the conclusion that the only option is a directly elected President as well as root-and-branch reform.
So you think a presidential system has a better chance of working for the EU than a parliamentary one? Why?

I guess part of my thinking is that by instituting a parliamentary system, the EU could resolve its democracy problem while at the same time moving to a federal system incrementally, in that the two houses or bodies could initially be vested with limited powers, much as the European Commission currently is - the difference being that elected representatives would actually be elected. Whereas, a presidential system would probably necessitate less incrementalism and thus be harder to accomplish.

But, anyway, I'm interested in hearing what your thinking is on it.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
7
0
Cannibal72 said:
Secondly, I've thought about the democatisation of the EU a lot, and I've come to the conclusion that the only option is a directly elected President as well as root-and-branch reform.
The move towards so-called Spitzenkandidaten was a big step in the right direction.

http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=Spitzenkandidat

It is therefore quite dismaying that Member State governments now want to reverse it. Having Spitzenkandidaten makes the nomination of the EU Commission chief more democratic and transparent.
 
I don't see in what way the two proposals mentioned above are contradictory, quite on the contrary, it makes perfect sense to anybody. The EU commission is a dictatorship in that they have both leglislative and executive powers and are non-elected people. In order to change that state of facts, you need all 28 member states to agree to it. Impossible! The probability of it ever happening is once in 10 billion years. The universe would already have gone by then...

Why do you need this shaggy mastodon so much? Why not get back to our good old sovereign nations which created our social welfare states? Because they are small? South Korea, San Marino and Singapore are also small and they don't belong to any supranational entity.


python said:
i could mistaken, but your comment seems to imply that there is something inherently wrong with islam. if so, i do'nt agree.
If it's about my comment, certainly not. I think that there's something inherently wrong with gay marriage but what I only wished to point out is that it's inconsistent with the Islamic faith. Even if it is true that the Koran is complicated to study, the work of a life-time (all the more if you add the Haddith to it) and it's not always easy to get the right interpretation, I think part of its theology is quite explicit and straight-forward. I don't see in what way Islam could tolerate gay marriage. Plus, if you are a Muslim, you need to show solidarity to fellow Muslims, in particular against Israeli settlements.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
7
0
Has Boris lost his mind with all this nonsense about the EU not letting you buy more than 3 bananas at a time?
 
The Tories are splitting themselves apart. If the media bothered to report on it as much as the Livingstone Hitler-tourettes saga then it would be the end of either DC's or the backbenchers' credibility. Probably the latter for now. One just said "Just find [Cameron] with a dead girl or a live boy and we're off", quoting the Louisiana governor of 1983 whose name has slipped my mind but I somehow remember his job title and date of the election on which he said it. Anyway, not the best choice of words.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
It was a stupid decision to hold a referendum on EU membership. It is such an important decision and the result of calling a national vote on it with a binary outcome is the the debate is now framed in simplistic popularist binary terms. This is an issue that should have been left for a parliamentary decision.

Madness. But then ineptitude has been the hallmark of the current administration.
 
Re:

kwikki said:
It was a stupid decision to hold a referendum on EU membership. It is such an important decision and the result of calling a national vote on it with a binary outcome is the the debate is now framed in simplistic popularist binary terms. This is an issue that should have been left for a parliamentary decision.

Madness. But then ineptitude has been the hallmark of the current administration.
If there were ever to be a decision on the EU then it should be done by the people, not the parliament. The people deserve a say in a matter so big. Besides, it's fun to watch the Tories rip themselves apart.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
kwikki said:
It was a stupid decision to hold a referendum on EU membership. It is such an important decision and the result of calling a national vote on it with a binary outcome is the the debate is now framed in simplistic popularist binary terms. This is an issue that should have been left for a parliamentary decision.

Madness. But then ineptitude has been the hallmark of the current administration.
If there were ever to be a decision on the EU then it should be done by the people, not the parliament. The people deserve a say in a matter so big. Besides, it's fun to watch the Tories rip themselves apart.
The so-called 'debate' on the EU issue is ample evidence of why this issue is not suited to a plebiscite vote. It's too complicated. It involves a complex mix of history, economics and politics but the public debate has inevitably boiled down to a dogmatic binary response based on ones own particular view of immigration. There has been no attempt at balance from either side which is inevitable as both sides reach ever lower in an attempt to grab the plebiscite vote.

The UK is a representative democracy, and as such this issue should be decided by our representatives. The result of having a plebiscite vote is that back row politicians are using it to jockey for power, and in doing so grinding the issue into the dirt. Gove, Farage and Johnson? Really?

This is a massive, massive mistake,
 
Re: Re:

kwikki said:
Brullnux said:
kwikki said:
It was a stupid decision to hold a referendum on EU membership. It is such an important decision and the result of calling a national vote on it with a binary outcome is the the debate is now framed in simplistic popularist binary terms. This is an issue that should have been left for a parliamentary decision.

Madness. But then ineptitude has been the hallmark of the current administration.
If there were ever to be a decision on the EU then it should be done by the people, not the parliament. The people deserve a say in a matter so big. Besides, it's fun to watch the Tories rip themselves apart.
The so-called 'debate' on the EU issue is ample evidence of why this issue is not suited to a plebiscite vote. It's too complicated. It involves a complex mix of history, economics and politics but the public debate has inevitably boiled down to a dogmatic binary response based on ones own particular view of immigration. There has been no attempt at balance from either side which is inevitable as both sides reach ever lower in an attempt to grab the plebiscite vote.

The UK is a representative democracy, and as such this issue should be decided by our representatives. The result of having a plebiscite vote is that back row politicians are using it to jockey for power, and in doing so grinding the issue into the dirt. Gove, Farage and Johnson? Really?

This is a massive, massive mistake,
I agree that the debate has turned into utter shite but isn't that the fault of our wonderful representatives rather than the people? I can only imagine how crap it would've gotten had it stayed in the the House of Commons, with everyone jeering and shouting.

The UK is a democracy. Representative or not, the point of a democracy is to give power or rule (κράτος) to the people (δεμος). Imagine if the power has stayed at the top, could you imagine the protests, the anguish and the anger?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
i think the decision to refer the matter to a plebiscite speaks to the strength of the british democratic model. just as it was proper to let scotland decide on continuing the union. the chips should always fall where they may.

all the concomitant excesses are a part of a bigger process. i view it as national self reflection. that the matter is complex is a good thing. a perfect chance of the citizens to learn and educate each other.

just as i always held the swiss model in high respect for its referendum propensity.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
I don't know if you are resident here, but the process has been far from educative. It really has been a race to the bottom, led by total chancers like Farage, Gove and Johnson. What should have been a complex discussion has booked down to whether or not you like eastern Europeans or not.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Re:

rhubroma said:
The problem with the EU is that the market dictates which country has the most decision making power.
Population plays a pretty big part under new voting rules. Which of course favours the UK, France, but especially Germany.
 
Re: Re:

kwikki said:
rhubroma said:
The problem with the EU is that the market dictates which country has the most decision making power.
Population plays a pretty big part under new voting rules.
The parliament has little power, most of it lies in the Comission, in which the county with the most influence is Germany. France has a lot too, and Luxembourg has an inordinate amount, while Greece has too little. Then you have the UK bitching at the sides.
 
Re: Re:

Brullnux said:
kwikki said:
rhubroma said:
The problem with the EU is that the market dictates which country has the most decision making power.
Population plays a pretty big part under new voting rules.
The parliament has little power, most of it lies in the Comission, in which the county with the most influence is Germany. France has a lot too, and Luxembourg has an inordinate amount, while Greece has too little. Then you have the UK bitching at the sides.
Since this is so the populist anti-European parties will continue to gain ground. At the same time, who can blame them.
 
Mar 14, 2016
3,092
7
0
Actually the most powerful EU organ is the Council of the EU, made up of the member states' heads of government. This benefits the UK because it's a country with a lot of diplomatic clout.
 
Apr 3, 2016
1,508
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Brullnux said:
kwikki said:
rhubroma said:
The problem with the EU is that the market dictates which country has the most decision making power.
Population plays a pretty big part under new voting rules.
The parliament has little power, most of it lies in the Comission, in which the county with the most influence is Germany. France has a lot too, and Luxembourg has an inordinate amount, while Greece has too little. Then you have the UK bitching at the sides.
Since this is so the populist anti-European parties will continue to gain ground. At the same time, who can blame them.
And yet....despite the nonsense (and fabricated) headlines about the EU stipulating regulation length of bananas etc, and the clarion call of the ignoramus ("it's health and safety gone mad!!!") A lot of good law has come out of the EU, law which hadn't come out of individual member states such as the UK.

The EU is the driver for environmental issues as well as for workers and human rights. In the UK, this is stymied by the reactionary nature of centre-right and right government with a healthy input from commercial interests.

If you want to see why the EU is a good thing in respect of law making you only have to look to the US where actual politics (rather than what gets said) is absolutely determined by corporations bankrolling their politicians. The US even fights wars at the behest of oil companies and arms manufacturers, as predicted by Eisenhower.
 
Re: Re:

kwikki said:
rhubroma said:
Brullnux said:
kwikki said:
rhubroma said:
The problem with the EU is that the market dictates which country has the most decision making power.
Population plays a pretty big part under new voting rules.
The parliament has little power, most of it lies in the Comission, in which the county with the most influence is Germany. France has a lot too, and Luxembourg has an inordinate amount, while Greece has too little. Then you have the UK bitching at the sides.
Since this is so the populist anti-European parties will continue to gain ground. At the same time, who can blame them.
And yet....despite the nonsense (and fabricated) headlines about the EU stipulating regulation length of bananas etc, and the clarion call of the ignoramus ("it's health and safety gone mad!!!") A lot of good law has come out of the EU, law which hadn't come out of individual member states such as the UK.

The EU is the driver for environmental issues as well as for workers and human rights. In the UK, this is stymied by the reactionary nature of centre-right and right government with a healthy input from commercial interests.

If you want to see why the EU is a good thing in respect of law making you only have to look to the US where actual politics (rather than what gets said) is absolutely determined by corporations bankrolling their politicians. The US even fights wars at the behest of oil companies and arms manufacturers, as predicted by Eisenhower.
The issue remains, however (and I don't challenge your observations), over the EU Commission being composed of political appointments under the aegis of the IMF, the Central European Bank and Germany. Its created a cold, technocratic bureaucracy that many citizens feel is undermining some of the very social issues you have brought up. The world of finance and the interests largely of the German banks have forged a community that many feel is inimical to workers.

As long as this perception lasts, the right wing nationalist parties have lymph in their blood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY