Off Topic Politics Thread

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39242707 (Erdogan)

This man is a bit of a thug and bullyboy. Is he trying oust Trump from pole position of being the biggest a***hole on the planet?

IMO the Dutch and other city authorities are quite right to ban marches where there is the likelihood of violence. So next time there is an EDL march, or any other kind of march that is likely to inflame public opinion, it should be banned. For example, if Luton had banned the "anti-war" march that led to the birth of the EDL, which was followed by a sharp swing in public opinion to the "Populist" right across the country, maybe the outcome of the EU referendum would have been quite different.
 
The Ides of March said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39242707 (Erdogan)

This man is a bit of a thug and bullyboy. Is he trying oust Trump from pole position of being the biggest a***hole on the planet?

IMO the Dutch and other city authorities are quite right to ban marches where there is the likelihood of violence. So next time there is an EDL march, or any other kind of march that is likely to inflame public opinion, it should be banned. For example, if Luton had banned the "anti-war" march that led to the birth of the EDL, which was followed by a sharp swing in public opinion to the "Populist" right across the country, maybe the outcome of the EU referendum would have been quite different.
Click to expand...
I'd say that it is wrong to ban this type of event because of this:
"Article 11 Right to
protest and freedom of association
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. This is a right closely linked to the right to freedom of expression.

It provides a means for public expression and is one of the foundations of a democratic society.

The right applies to protest marches and demonstrations, press conferences, public and private meetings, counter-demonstrations, ‘sit-ins’, motionless protests etc.

The right only applies to peaceful gatherings and does not protect intentionally violent protest.

There may be interference with the right to protest if the authorities prevent a demonstration from going ahead; halt a demonstration; take steps in advance of a demonstration in order to disrupt it; and store personal information on people because of their involvement in a demonstration.

The right to peaceful assembly cannot be interfered with merely because there is disagreement with the views of the protesters or because it is likely to be inconvenient and cause a nuisance or there might be tension and heated exchange between opposing groups.

There is a positive obligation on the State to take reasonable steps to facilitate the right to freedom of assembly, and to protect participants in peaceful demonstrations from disruption by others".

Just because a protest may attract a violent reaction doesn't make it a violent protest, and it should be allowed to happen unless there is definitive proof that the group holding the meeting or protest have planned violence themselves. It is the duty of the state to ensure that opposition groups don't use violence to disrupt the meeting, not ban the meeting in case this happens. This situation creates a potential scenario whereby ANY protest or public meeting taking place could be banned by the state, on the basis that it could provoke violent opposition...I'm not a supporter of the Turkish leader or his policies however it shouldn't be the case that a state or population can decide what protests to allow and which to ban on the basis that they agree or disagree with the cause as this particular planned rally is not inherently violent in itself.
Freedom of association should apply to everyone so it kind of plays into Erdogan's hands to disrupt his plans. The language he uses and the reaction he gives are possibly inflammatory however he is right to consider state sponsored censoring to be facist behaviour. Hugely ironic I know, but still right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road, ImpSaint and Onionman
Of course Theresa May can in theory refuse to allow the referendum, or refuse to allow it before the UK leaves the EU. That would be a ballsy call but many people seem to think there's not much appetite for a second referendum so I wouldn't rule it out.

If the Scots do get the referendum, vote to leave and want to be part of the EU they better prepare for some fairly extreme austerity measures.
 
I would refuse them until after Brexit. They are not going to leave the UK until after they have left the EU as part of the UK anyway, even if they vote out before Brexit. The Scottish people deserve to know what they are voting for if they vote to stay, Its worth waiting a couple more years for a much better idea of what the state of the country will be after a decision that will affect the country for generations after.

I think the SNP just want to use the chaos of brexit to help make "facts" unreliable and make it purely an argument of nationalism. I think the Scottish people deserve more than that.
 
She seems to think that if they left us before we finally left the EU (not sure if there would be time as surely it would take time to leave the UK) then Scotland would not need to rejoin the EU as they hadn't left. As VM said this is surely completely unfair on the Scottish people as they will have no idea what they are voting for. What deal will the UK have achieved or what deal will the EU give Scotland? No one will know at the time of the vote. They could end up outside the EU having to rejoin and outside the UK. Their economy would not stand it.

I still don't understand how leaving the UK and staying in the EU is independent. It's just different people telling you what you can do.
 
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about EU member states splitting but I'm pretty sure the other EU nations would have to agree to that and I'm fairly sure that wouldn't happen. Spain are the obvious candidate to vote against it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VocalMinority
VocalMinority said:
Personally, if i was Scottish i would have an issue with the fact England has an overall majority when it comes to the UK election.
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons why powers have, and continue to be, devolved to N. Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Unfortunately some of the Scots decided to vote for a nationalist party which can never get into power in Westminster as the rest of the UK can't vote for them. They had 13 years of Labour who the Scots at the time were voting for so it wasn't an England thing then. The last Labour PM was a Scot after all.
 
VocalMinority said:
Personally, if i was Scottish i would have an issue with the fact England has an overall majority when it comes to the UK election.
Click to expand...

If I was Scottish I would be appalled at being forced out of Europe because of what I would probably regard as the ignorance of the English.

As it happens, despite being very English indeed, I'm still appalled at the ignorance of the English.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7, TheSecondStain, Ian Thumwood and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back