Which would imply that written constitutions/bills of rights are not worth the paper they are written on.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
The only advantage which such a thing has is that it can always be used as a yardstick by which to measure deviations from it. So, many reformers of the past such as Martin Luther King have been able to draw on the comparison/difference between the spirit of the constitution on the one hand and the present realities on the other. However much they may have deviated from it the Americans are better off with the constitution and bill of rights than they would be without them.
Agreed. And even though that gives them the right to kill each other with automatic weapons and then face punishment. And before we go further, let me be clear that I am a contrarian by nature and if this dialogue irritates you just ask me to stop.
So, if I understand you correctly you want the right to vote in both the country of your birth and country of your residence. In order to elect politicians who may or may not abide by their written or unwritten constitutions in upholding your 'rights'. Would you also agree with the Americans that such a privilege would oblige you to pay tax in both countries, wherever you earn your income?
I'm afraid that with increasing age I have seen the 'rights' promise broken so often (what about the right not to starve to death as a child - yet thousands do every day) that it has become empty for me, just words, at best a statement of intent. Rights, a societal invention, have to be earned and sacrifices made for them to have any meaning. I prefer to judge by the behaviour of individuals towards each other, which is, by and large, much more positive.
Suggest living away a while and getting some hands on experience of different culture and different ways of doing things and resolving problems, should actually widen your hard disc and open your soul and heart, and give you a better understanding of who to vote for, or not. Still, I never been to NZ, so what do I know. Never really understood the selfishness of voting for who you think will do best for You. I thought it was about making where you live the best for everyone.
I think you may have me on the second paragraph - really I'm miffed that I have to pay taxes here without voting rights. I have been here for 26 years and payed taxes the whole time, am a member of a political party here but cannot vote in national elections ie. not for the government I pay my taxes to. For me to take German nationality would be no problem based on time of residence - but, the Germans are problematic with the idea of dual nationality and there is no way I am giving up my British nationality. I think that nobody should have to live under a government, and under laws, which they have had no share in voting for (or against) - and so I think that all foreign tax payers should have full voting rights - dependent on a language test. I fully agree that morally I should be voting in Germany and not in the UK. but not being able to vote in either makes you feel less like a citizen. It must be the same for many EU citizens living in the UK. For me voting should be inclusive, and if you are disenfranchising whole groups of people eg. prisoners (again), those without British/Commonwealth passports, and making it more difficult to register for the vote - and at the same time about 35% of those eligable cannot be bothered anyway, and all of this together with a first past the post voting system, then the end result is a government with very little support (and, therefore, very little real legitimacy).
I agree entirely. It sounds the same in Germany as Norway, though I can vote in local elections there not national. Yet I have lived and paid taxes there for well over 30 years. Though I remain a British citizen I haven't been able to vote there for years either. Still though it's not right, I can't say I'm too bothered!
Tell you what brings dual nationality into context - national service. I had a couple of Italian mates (they didn't know each other) who took opposite courses. Both born in Britain to Italian parents, in their early 20's in the early 80s (when they were still doing national service in Italy). If you didn't do your national service as an Italian citizen you would be arrested when entering the country. One, a bilingual Italian/English speaker, decided he didn't want to do national service, but did want to be able to go to visit his family in Italy, so he renounced his citizenship, became a 100% Brit. The other, who actually didn't speak much Italian, decided to do his national service and ended up digging corpses out of the rubble after the Napoli earthquake. He also learned to speak not only Italian but three or four Italian dialects as only those with no influence or connections ended up doing that type of service (yet another mate who's family were well off lived at home for 90% of his national service, drove to work everyday). I'm ****ing glad he did, because his family moved back to Italy and when I knew him he was a mechanic at his Dad's garage. He 'borrowed' a Merc E Class in for a service and drove me and a couple of others to Vienna to see AC Milan in the European Cup final. He wouldn't let any of the rest of us drive, so it was an extremely debauched trip for 75% of the squad.
So lads, would you give up a year of your lives to get citizenship? This 'tax' thing sounds very 18th century....if your wives were also British (no assumptions being made) but did not work, should they not get the vote in their adopted country while you do?
TWGWTDT
Well-Known Member
Dual nationality and national service are difficult themes - if both countries have it then a person is only required to do national service once. If one country doesn't have it and the other does it can be complicated. Germany has problems with the idea of dual nationality, and people of Turkish descent who are born here in Germany are considered to be the nationality of the mother until the age of 18 and then they have to choose. Giving up the nationality of the parents can be a very emotional thing to do and some decide to remain Turkish even if they were born and brought up in Germany. The result is that many people who have been born in Germany, and have never lived in Turkey, have no vote in Germany. They can also be taken for military service in Turkey if they happen to go there on holiday. I have known people who went there for a months holiday and came back 2 years later. Absolutely ridiculous because Turkey does not need them for defence purposes - they live on a barracks together with Turks from the Netherlands, Germany, France etc. and never serve with native born conscripts or see active service. The thing of voting is also strange because Erdogan actually came to Cologne canvassing just before the last Turkish elections.
I don't get any pleasure from this but yet another cock up from the new Labour leadership, walked straight into Osborne's trap on the surplus law (a pointless gimmick in itself), say they support it, then change their mind, cause massive dissent amongst their own MPs, and the only person they can find to go on the Today programme to talk about it is Diane Abbott, endlessly repeating her "Osborne's mismanagement of the economy" soundbite (pretty sure that's not a winner) and trying to kid us she understands Keynsian economics.
This is either a Machiavellian plan to destroy the centre right of Labour and let the noisy 'grassroots' left seize control and charge into oblivion, or, much more likely, what you get when people who have spent 40 years standing on the sidelines moaning and keeping their principles pure and their consciences pristine wind up in a real job.
This is either a Machiavellian plan to destroy the centre right of Labour and let the noisy 'grassroots' left seize control and charge into oblivion, or, much more likely, what you get when people who have spent 40 years standing on the sidelines moaning and keeping their principles pure and their consciences pristine wind up in a real job.
where would you like me too move too next too widen my hard disc
if its all about making where you live the best for everyone why would you want to vote where you don't live
Yet another own-foot-shooting by Tom and Jerry's shadow government. Clearly causing serious rifts within the Labour Party, yet to listen to Diane Abbot joking and giggling through her interview with John Humphrey, you'd think they were talking about Red Nose Day
when government runs a budget surplus to have funds for a rainy day. Labour supported two weeks ago, and have now done a U turn overnight and will oppose the goverment
You live where you want mate. But many people maintain strong links with their home country, visit a lot, many have family there, and many plan to return, so naturally want to vote there too. In any case we all live in this World, and a vote in one Country theoretically has a miniscule impact on the World we live in, and only a miniscule less small on the country you live in.
It's a law which says 'in normal times' Governments must set budgets which generate a surplus, which is then used to reduce overall government debt. It's complete bollocks of course, as the definition of 'normal times' is open to a wide array of interpretation (i.e. now isn't 'normal' because we have wars, migrants, Greece and the Chinese ****ing everything up. And bankers too) and no individual gets punished if the 'law' is broken. It's an attempt to set Tory philosophy in stone. Of course it makes just as much sense to say 'Governments should borrow when credit is cheap' i.e. now.
Saw a very good film on the plane last week, Margin Call, about the origins of the 2008 crash. Well acted, no heroes or villains just a lot of very confused and panicky (mostly) men. The only irritating thing was the frequency of the phrase 'put that in simple terms for me' as if people who had worked in the sector for 30 years would not understand the jargon ridden version, but I suppose it was needed to make the thing comphrehensible. Included this great speech from Jeremy Irons.
You must log in or register to see media
Good acting, and I'm sure Jeremy Irons enjoyed his part in highlighting the unacceptable face of unregulated capitalism. I'll look out for the film
Just noticed a critical error in the film though. There is no way a character like the one Irons is playing would ever wear a button down collar shirt, except possibly with jeans/chinos at the yacht club. Surprising mistake, as they got Spacey's character just right, older than most of the rest and still wearing braces a la 80s/90s.
Seriously, you don't end up disliking any of these characters, or get any sense of malice from them, just an overwhelming 'oh ****, what have we done?'. I have no idea how accurate it is, but I suppose the crash must have come with one company spotting that they had a mountain of worthless product based on sub prime mortages and deciding to take their losses before everyone else noticed that the house was build on quicksand.
The US house prices slumped, and it soon became clear to the international markets generally that securities backed by sub prime mortgages ie loans to people who couldn't service their debts, were worthless.
ie the tide had gone out, and everyone could see who wasn't wearing a bathing suit. Lehman Bros were more naked than others...
Diane Abbott is an expert on the subject, having studied fiscal sciences at Nairobi University.