So brexit mps who believe it is in the uk’s best interest are all wrong.
Is that what you are saying ?

I'd say there is a lot of common sense in your commentary.

It's certainly wrong to 'blame' or abuse people for their genetics. However, the neo liberal state is fully committed to the world village. Any objection to that future is regarded as 'hate' or 'abuse'.

For an example, look at what happened to those cricketers in Yorkshire. Does anyone serious outside of the usual suspects really believe that Asians were subjected to 'hate' or 'abuse'? Yet look at what the state and the institutions made happen.....they didn't even really care about the truth, the accusations were all they needed.

The same tactics are used if you point out things you might not agree with over the Israeli state these last seventy years (not that these are arguments I tend to make). The system is set up in such a way that those criticisms will see you branded an 'antisemite'. You will suddenly see people who disagree using words like 'hate' and 'abuse'. You will be subjected to the Maoist practice of being told what you really think instead of your actual words speaking for themselves....instead they will 'interpret' those words for you.

Whether it's a debate on race or gender or anything else the current power structure wants, it's a tactic used to head off actual debate or justify whatever the system wants to punish you with for ideas it fears.

I think it's a valid question to ask how we got here.....why we got here....and where are we going....and is any of that an improvement and if so....for whom.

Because Nicholas it has to be stated, the system that raised me was fully committed to exactly the beliefs as you stated them....I'd describe them as the Martin Luther King Jr mindset....or what it's called in my circles, 'boomer truth'.

It's is that exact same system that led us to exactly this place now.

Personally I think we are living in an age where there is a disconnect between what people like me were brought up to believe in....that kind of Martin Luther King Jr, 'I have a dream' speech and what actually occurred once all the boomer egalitarians enacted their ideas.

As I say I was raised on those same 'boomer truths' and ideals. I advocated for them for most of my adult life. Things changed in my approach only when I actually paid attention to what was actually happening. What the actual laws and i1nstitutions started to resemble.

I think that point is very important...actually connecting the rhetoric to what the consequences to them were are on the ground once it was implemented. I don't see that as an accident or incidental at all. It was always what was going to happen.

We both lived in Lewisham and its surrounding areas. So we both know what the holistic realities are once the demographics were made to change....the crime rate, the actual real group loyalties and allegiances.

You only have to look at the areas on a before and after basis. Look at Detroit in the 1950s and now, or Luton or Brixton then and now. Look at how things are run, from the rubbish on the streets to the actual lack of diversity on them....because the boxer Ali was definitely right about actual group living dynamics.

To me, you have to either be on the far left and anti white or a complete and utter utopian to see think the harmonious global village is going to work...they can't point to any location on earth where it does and few of them will live in those locations. Yet they will still point to their 'I have a dream' ideas like a Disney fan holds onto a world of Princesses and ivory towers.

They know what they want the world to be like and so they will keep saying what they believe regardless of what the reality is.....like the rich gated communities in LA, who keep voting Democrat just as long as their secured patch is kept safe from the consequences of those votes outside the gates.

I regard it as the difference between a utopian and a utilitarian.

They don't care about the holistic reality, only their reality and the conceit of virtue signalling to fit in with their political peers.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Jun 2022 8.11pm)

Correct.

We don't have a written constitution, but we do have Acts of Parliament (and common laws) which are vested in an elected Parliament. The Monarch signs them into law, but has no influence over them. The Monarch reigns, but does not rule.

When people say the UK doesn't have a written constitution I think that some people get the impression that it means no one is guided by laws and rules and just go on practice.

I think there are obviously written down laws and codes for the individual parts of the system. It's just not all put together within a single document called a constitution.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Jun 2022 10.45pm)

Correct.

However far too much of our constitution is left for interpretation by the courts or historical precedent (Just because we did something in the past e.g. witches were drowned...).

I for one would like to see a bill detailing responsibilities and duties for the PM, ministers and back bench MPs. Most people have a work contract that details this and the consequences of breaking it e.g. if you steal we will sack you.

It is ridiculous in this day and age that MPs can pretty much do what they like and only the extreme examples are punished.

- They don't have minimum working hours for the HOC or their constituency offices.
- There are no performance related metrics e.g. just because you turn up doesn't mean you do your job.
- They spend time on second jobs well if they have no minimum hours how do we know they are doing their MPs job. Then of course there is the conflict of interest in their second job you can drive a bus through that one.
- Except in 1 limited example the electorate cannot sack an MP until election time. So the likes of Anna Sourbry lies to her voters then changes parties and has the gall to refuse to call a by election.
- MPs get caught up in scandals which would be the sack for the rest of us (bringing your company's image into disrepute) but can cling on until the next election.

More importantly the powers of the PM are decided by a court (Boris) not by Parliament.

I could go on but you get the point.