The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

TheMadcapLaughs

Just one small point as regards to "the law". If the openly gay chap is one of the older judges I wonder if he broke "the law" in his younger days or waited patiently until "the law" was changed so he could become gay.

Tomw85

I don't think that you become gay, you are either gay or you are not. He may have waited to announce that he is gay but from reading up on this yesterday he has been openly gay for a long time it seems which is good to see that he felt that he could be.

NEoldiron

Madcap, that last post is a little disconcerting. ;hmm

TheMadcapLaughs

Tom, sorry, you missed my point, it was to demonstrate that "the law," for the most part, is pretty pointless and nonsensical.

And as I said earlier, this particular case is about interpretation, it is not black and white. A different take from some lawyers below:

http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-article-50-case.shtml

One thing I do know, the cost of any protracted legal posturing, finger wagging and head shaking; appeals, gumph, and blabbering, will be paid for by us. Maddening.

Tomw85

Madcap - one would hope that he was active in trying to change the law as in this case it was not fit for purpose.

ASLEFshrugged

Sir Terence Etherton was born on 21 June 1951 and became a barrister in 1974 after studying history and law at Cambridge. The Sexual Offences Act decriminalising homosexual acts between men 21 years or over came into law on 27 July 1967 when he would have been 16 waiting for his O level results.

TheMadcapLaughs

NEoldiron said:

Madcap, that last post is a little disconcerting. ;hmm

It demonstrates what an ass the law is. The state, through its laws, tells us what is right and wrong, apparently before 1967 being gay was wrong, but after it was OK. If the judge was actively participating before 1967 he was breaking the law, not something you would expect someone with a legal bent to be a party to. So, did he flout that particular law, because it suited, or wait until the state told him it would be OK. Just so you understand, this is to demonstrate the absurdity of "law", not any individuals right to chose what they do in regards to their own personal choices. The very cornerstone of Anarchist thought is the absolute sanctity of the individual. The very earliest, coherent, written advocacy for total equality between the sexes and between races is within Anarchist literature. The people on here are holding up "The Law" as being some type of Holy Grail and as justification for three men in wigs to make decisions on our behalf. I`m just trying to demonstrate that the law, as written down by nation states, is nothing more and nothing less than gumph.

TheMadcapLaughs

I do hope you understand now. We are all tied to the moral compass by state and religious laws, perceptions of what is right and what is wrong. Morality is dictated to us and we lead our lives in fear of what one chap described as "spooks". So far from being "disconcerting" my post was aimed at those that take the moral high ground based on laws and moral codes that are forced on us by the twin demagogues of state (law) and religion. I couldn`t care less if all three judges are part of a devil worship group and dance around an effigy of Bob Geldof in nothing but there wigs and pink glittery ballet pumps. What does concern me is people are desperate to cling to "the law" when the law is demonstrably nothing but made up piffle.

IronHerb

If you say so Madcap.

Vorselaarhammer

MadCap - No Murder is a good law, agree? How about no Robbery?

You point is relevent for incorrect laws, but defining what is incorrect is based on opinion and position.

As such you need a way of deciding what are good and what are bad, but you can't asked everyone to vote every time there is a new law.

So we elect people figure out the pros and cons and then put a position forward.

Anarchy is great if your the biggest lion in the jungle but most of us aren't.

So for me you point sort of losses it's momentum.

grey_til_I_dye

Sorry, Macdcap, I don't see it that way.

The state legislates for what it determines to be permissible or impermissible at given points in time.

I don't believe it tells anyone what is 'moral' or not.

Religion, done well, at least, doesn't force anyone to do or think anything at all.

It offers a set of dogmas, and then teachings based on those dogmas which those who choose to follow it are asked to accept.

People are free to assent or not as they choose.

By all means preach a creed of moral relativism, where the individual is free to determine for him or herself what they can do, but don't blame religion for doing what it is meant to do.

Surely, even in an anarchist wonderland there will need to be some kind of consensus as to what is and is not permissible to individuals within the group?

And won't they either be just as arbitrary as the current laws you seem to dismiss, or equally based on the complex needs of societised individuals, depending on how you see things?

TheMadcapLaughs

Vorselaar, you have it the wrong way round, in Capitalism its survival of the fittest, the strong ruling over the weak. Social Darwinism in other words. In Anarchist theory that is turned on its head, its survival of the most co-operative. No Gods, no masters. It also assumes that humans are by nature "good" and follow natural laws, and yes, one of the first principals of Anarchist doctrine is non violence. Let me put it this way, there may be a hundred people on here, and say we all know 10 people each, that`s say a thousand people. If the government repealed the law in regards to murder tomorrow is there any one you know (including yourself) who would go out tomorrow and murder with gay abandon. I would pretty much bet that no-one on here knows anyone that would. By simple extrapolation I`d say there is pretty close to a thousand people linked to this site who wouldn`t go out and murder. And if you think about it, having a law that bans murder, DOESN`T stop murder, so what`s the answer, perhaps a change in social relationships may help, a change in society. You understand Anarchy from what you are told Anarchy represents, you have been misled. I`m not saying that an Anarchist society would be any better, but we are never taught alternatives, there are alternatives. Anarchist theory, if read and understood, is about as best an alternative as I can see. The following pretty succinctly sums up the basic tenets of Anarchist thought, and it is probably a million miles away from what you perceive Anarchy to be:

If you are hungry, I will offer food
If you are thirsty, I will offer water
If you are cold, I will offer warmth
If you are in need, ask and I will give
If you are in trouble, ask and I will help.

I do not do these things in the hope of being rewarded
I do not do these things out of fear of punishment
I do these things because I know them to be right
I set my own standards and I enforce them
I am an Anarchist

One of the greatest Anarchist writers set out to prove that the oft misquoted law of Darwins "survival of the fittest" was not only wrong, but Darwin never said it and his theory proved the exact opposite. Basically, the species that prosper and survive are the species with the greatest level of cooperation, he termed this phenomenon "mutual aid". He also noted that humanity has from the dawn of time prospered, survived and grown not because of survival of the fittest, not because of the battle of man between man, but because of the cooperation of man between man. Throughout history man (and I`d like to think you and I) has followed a path that tends towards adopting the natural "laws" above.
"Survival of the fittest" is used to justify the Capitalist system, it is about as far from The Anarchist tradition as you could get.
Anarchy is not about guns and bombs and war and death, it`s not about fear and cruelty, poverty and destruction, that appears to be the job of the state.
It shows how much we are misled and brainwashed when the word Anarchy causes fear and apprehension, and yet the word State engenders none of these feelings.
The greatest crimes of modern times are perpetrated not in the name of Anarchy, but in the name of The State.

TheMadcapLaughs

Grey, surely making homosexuality illegal is a moral stand. The law is based on perceived morality. And yes, an anarchist society is organised from the bottom up, not from the top down. The basic principle is "do unto others.........." you know the rest. It perceives that most of the Worlds problems stem form one basic problem within capitalist society, and that is inequality. I have no problem with religion per se, in fact Jesus is often thought of as the first practising Anarchist. Tolstoy is one of Anarchisms greatest philosophers, seen from a Christian perspective. What religion has done over the centuries, however, is literally put the fear of God in to people, surely God is not to be feared. Organised religion has also perpetrated some of the greatest atrocities over the centuries known to man, or to be fair, these have been done in the name of religion. The state and the church literally have the blood of millions of people on their hands. Anarchists have never, ever committed a single act of mass murder, but the popular picture of an anarchist is with a bomb in one hand and a dagger in the other. Why do you think that is?

MrsGrey

madcap, 'survival of the fittest' (whether Darwin said it, or whether it is a paraphrase of his theory) doesn't mean fit as in strong/fast/able to win a battle.

That is a fundamental and very widespread misunderstanding.

In the context of evolutionary theory, it means 'most suitable' as in best adapted to its environment.

So your argument that humans have prospered because of banding together into group (clans, tribes, nations whatever) and co-operating is in fact entirely consistent with the theory of survival of the fittest rather than disproving it.

Furthermore, co-operation included the agreement of 'laws' (whether they be codified as now or simply the habit of custom and tradition) and sanctions fr those that transgress. This has nothing to do with the state - it is a feature of all tribes and societies, large and small.

chicagohammer

Madcap The main problem with the theory as presented is that eventually you will inevitably reach people who will act totally selfishly and to the detriment of others.

The proposition is that there are a hundred of us on here and we know ten people each, if your universe is just this segment then maybe, your views have merit and could be worked, the problem is that when you expand your universe to include ever increasing segments of society - then you will be inevitably incorporating an ever increasing element of disruptive behaviour, which will need to be addressed by enforceable laws.

Such laws would then become necessary and be established for the good of the community.

The major assumption that all humans are inherently "good" is, IMO, the major flaw in such thinking.

There are enough lessons in history that conclusively show that given no immediate sanction, mans ability and willingness to bestow inhumanity to their fellow man, holds no boundary.

;ok

grey_til_I_dye

MadCap

People commit atrocities, not disembodied labels. To blame actions on 'the state' or 'religion' is, imo, to excuse the conduct of those who committed the atrocities.

When you get your anarchist society, you will find you still have to cope with people who don't share your ideals, and will need to be dealt with somehow.

SuzanneClaret

Like Spurs fans.


They will need to be dealt with.

IronHerb

;biggrin

TheMadcapLaughs

Thats what I just said, we are in agreement, Darwin has often been MISQUOTED to justify Capitalism and the rule of one over another. The chap I was talking about said its the misconception of Darwinism that has caused the problems. Kropotkin, you and I have all come to the same conclusion and agreed with Darwin and his conclusions, not the oft misquoted "survival of the fittest".
And Mrs G, it`s also a misconception that Anarchists are against organisation, we`re not, but it is organisation by consensus, not by coercion. There is nothing wrong with agreements, customs or traditions, these are natural. Its when laws are made that channel wealth and power one way that there is a problem. All you have described above is desirable, its the rise of the nation state and laws designed to skew the natural order of things that has created the problems. Anarchist believe whole heartedly in society, it is essential to human well being, what they disagree with is the inevitable coercion endemic within the modern nation state, and particularly under capitalism. The EU could have been an Anarchist dream, a federation of peoples cooperating without borders, with the free movement of people goods and ideas, its like an Anarchist blue print. Unfortunately for me (and this is where I think they went wrong) was the power grab into Brussels. Large centralized states do not work, people want to decide things locally. Start small and fan out, but fan out ONLY if you want to, not because you are told to. Voluntary confederation is desirable, enforced globalization will not work.

TheMadcapLaughs

Chicago, the terrible things you have described have happened under the rule of law. This is proven as you say. What isn`t proven is will these things happen if society was "reset" as such. Would these things happen if society ensured equality and the eradication of need. It is well proven that as things stand, war, poverty, hunger, exploitation, murder happen, no one is denying that. Are you saying you are willing to continue down this path because you see no alternative?? All I`m offering up is alternatives. As much as I despise the saying: "thinking outside the box". If we are destined to continue down this current path then I don`t see much hope for humanity. Nothing more than an endless cycle of war, famine, the rise and fall of dictatorships, global warming, the extinction of species........... great!!

TheMadcapLaughs

Grey, anarchism admits the frailties of the human psyche, and people who threaten any community would be dealt with. No problem at all with robust defence. And yes Suzanne, any Spurs fans would be lined up........................... ;devil

claretandbluesky

Interesting to see that a tory MP has resigned today over differences with his views and the direction this Govt is heading - I wonder if we could see a few more of these should the triggering of article 50 go to vote by MPs. The conundrum they have is that if they are wholeheartedly against brexit but represent a constituency which voted leave, would a few resign rather than go against their conscience? Obviously not going to happen en masse but could be enough to cause issues considering how slender a majority the Govt have at present.

TheMadcapLaughs

Grey, who would you blame for the holocaust. The individuals who perpetrated individual acts, or Hitler and the Nazi state and its ideology?
People are forced, in the extreme, not by their natural instincts to commit acts of torture and genocide, but by the state and the threat of violence.
Most people would admit to following the basic tenets outlined previously, they would think of these things as natural and humane. What makes humans act in a way counter to these natural instincts. Something must.
I think it`s the way we are taught and nurtured. Nationalism, patriotism, duty, servility. All things that run counter to the human spirit.
If left alone the human spirit will seek a society that is just and fair, we have all the tools and natural attributes at our finger tips. I still think that one day the natural conclusion to the mess we see today will be a World of true equality.
It can`t go on as it is. Surely.

claretandbluesky

I think human beings live through narratives, once this is understood those who crave power seek to dictate the narrative, if doing so efficiently enough the populous get behind them. In Nazi Germany the narrative was that the jews were responsible for all kind of ills, the narrative dehumanised them and then once that is done all manner of tragedy can unfold in clear sight. Reflecting on Nazi Germany I often wonder if there is a narrative that couldn't be sold to a populous at large. There will always be those who are beyond being sold a narrative, often the artists and intelligentsia, which is why any leader seeking power through narrative often seeks to eliminate those people, see Chairman Mao, Stalin etc.

QAs far as brexit is concerned what was the most difficult thing to take were the arguments encouraged by press and certain politicians that were factually untrue, the Syrians coming in, Turkey in by Christmas, The 12 Billion or whatever it was being paid each year. It is really hard to hear untruths being peddled and know that certain people will hear it and vote according to it, as for all the talk of subverting democracy in my view that is the worst, factually lying, not opinion pieces but factually lying. Only yesterday someone who voted leave said to me that if the courts overturn brexit by next summer we will be overrun with Syrian refugees. And today people who had a vote speaking about the ruling yesterday without reading it let alone understanding it but believing without any doubt at all they understand it through a piece printed in a newspaper.

claretandbluesky

This made me smile - should they be able to vote ?

Not least because they bully, threaten and abuse but because they couldn't establish whether it was the right person first!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37869797

grey_til_I_dye

MadCap

If left alone the human spirit will seek a society that is just and fair

I very much wish this were true, and very much fear it isn't.

There aren't many examples I can think of of 'primitive' societies behaving very much differently to how we behave now.

In western society, I don't think how things are organised is the problem (although I do think there are problems with how things are organised) I think it is people who are the problem.

What's stopping the world from being a better place, imo, is a lack of better people.

NEoldiron

Madcap, too ironic for words:
"Grey, who would you blame for the holocaust. The individuals who perpetrated individual acts, or Hitler and the Nazi state and its ideology?
People are forced, in the extreme, not by their natural instincts to commit acts of torture and genocide, but by the state and the threat of violence. "

From claretandblue's link:
"But she said Thursday's "crazy" Brexit backlash took her completely by surprise.
"On Twitter, on Facebook - there were some swearing, lots of people saying I was a traitor. 'You're ruining our democracy', ' move to France' - and much more'.
She added: "I even had an email. In the subject box it said: 'I hope you die, I sincerely hope you get cancer and die'."
Having visited the UK on previous occasions, Ms Miller said: "It was in overwhelming contrast to the very proper, polite British behaviour I'd seen before."

So who was forcing these morons - oh, of course, my mistake, it was the Daily Mail et al and Arron ?anks.

Couldn't make it up ;lol

AdMeus_CaputFilius

The papers and UKIP will attempt brow beat the MP's into voting with their constituencies rather than with their own conscience,

;hmm .......

But surely that is what they should do, after all they are voted in to represent their constituencies views, not their own personal ones. If they don't at the next election all the opposition has to do is point this out and brand them as not trustworthy, saying "Don't vote for them, they will do what they think they should and is in their own/parties interest, not what you want or yours".

If you were an MP where over 60% of the constituents you represent had voted to leave, even if you did not and still think we should not, do you vote on Article 50 to reflect their wishes - knowing that if you did not and voted on your own view, there was a good chance you would lose the next election? Not only that, but it may contribute to a more right wing element getting in to power and triggering article 50 anyway as that would be one of the core election promises.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

Vorselaarhammer said:

Ok first article I've seen, indicating this could trigger a general election..

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37861456

Well the current Gov't are saying it's not going to happen and they will push on with the current plans for triggering article 50 in March anyway.

claretandbluesky

When she states however that she will simply push on she is taking a position in which she seeks to place herself beyond the laws through which the nation is governed, in my view to play the home crowd. Either way she is either dangerous as she wishes to turn the narrative against judges who were not political in any way but simply applied the law in a coherent and clear way, or she is stupid and doesn't understand what the judgement meant, as it means she cannot push on without parliaments backing as she says she is going to, even if she wants to.

She really needs start trying to bring the country together again and why she went so overtly with the brexit means brexit I have no idea. I also think she is unsure of herself and seeks approval, so all in all I cant see her seeing this through.

This is what worries me most about TM as she had an opportunity to say that whilst she hoped the legal judgement would find in the Govts favour she recognises why it failed to - it is pretty clear why they couldn't find in the Govts favour and you don't need be a lawyer. She also originally had the chance to recognise that the vote was about as close as you could get and seek to unite the nation but instead went with brexit means brexit and anyone who asked questions was accused of subverting democracy, which is of course what she seeks to do by pushing on with her agenda regardless.