The end of democracy, the start of populist democracy.

[Maximus Zeebra]

We can all clearly see that democracies around the world is failing, when those who have proclaimed to be the first and longest lasting such are starting to show dictatorial tendencies and tyrranical world leadership.

I am naturally talking about the treesome, the UK, the US and Australia. These countries are showing extreme tendencies not only in politics but also in the way they make those politics happen. Not only do they manipulate their populations into believing things that are not true for their political cases, but people are starting to see tendencies where these states are completely dominated by the upper leadership, whereas the lower leadership(parliament, senate etc) is just something to use or misuse as you want.

This can surely not be healthy for democracies, especially considering the upper leadership are taking more and more decisions, and not only manipulate the people but also manipulate their lower level leadership to accomplish whatever they want, bad or good. The "old" democracies are showing more and more of a tendency of carefully planned events where top leadership manipulates both the people and their lower government to go along with whatever they want. If they are not succeeding, these leaders will surely use their powers to overturn any decisions.

Its not only a disturbing factor that these democracies are manipulating and deceiving their own lower level politicians and citizens of their nations, but now these states are starting to come together to create some kind of world tyrranical leaderhip of incompetence and suffering. Whatever these people thing if they are right or wrong, they have absolutely no right to dictate other nations fates or opinions.

In my opinion, of all the western democracies, no countries are showing even close tendencies to being tyrranical and dictatorical(and or weakened democracies) than the US, UK and Australia in particular. Unlike their traditional leaders who were proud of democracy the politicans of these country now have so much power that once they get voted as a democratic leader they basically can rule as dictators. And surely, they have throught of EVERY single thing when they get elected, everything from how to manipulate their people via media or their closest politicians. This was not the way democracy was suppose to move, the political models MUST change in order for the world to preserve just rule and influence of the people. Democracy is weakening and perhaps even failing/falling, so its now that we must take action to make new effective political models BASED on democracy.

Here are a list of alternatives ranked in declining order;

Populist democracy: Wherein leaders are choosen as in democracy, but many of their cases/policies are ultimately decided by the people through referedas or E-democracy.
The political model will look somehow different, but will reflect the peoples ability to take control where politicians fails. Heavily dependent on technology.
A few important traits: The most sensitive political cases like going to war, changing the constitution, major law changes, major tax changes, must first be voted by among politicians and approved with democratic majority and then be processed to the people for voting, referenda, direct referenda for ratification.

Popular democracy: Almost the same a pupulist democracy, but just the most sensitive cases have to be ratified by the people. More so than in a democracy. Like war for example or major country decisions.

Grassroot democracy/representative democracy
democracy+.. Where units or peoples representatives in a local level are made an important part of decision making at top level. This could be dont in combination with E-democracy where representatives say their case and are elected in the local community to represent groups of people.


What is sure is that more power needs to move down, and less power need to move up to single individuals, how this should be done, thats the debate/question.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

What utter condescending drivel.

If you want to talk about populist policies, let us look at France or Germany. France's socialist candidate President seems to spouting populist policies about job protection, tarrifs, and 35 hour weeks. Popular with the general public.

Then there is farming subsidies, I suppose America, Britain and Australia are the absolute evil Imperialists screwing the third world. Good to know that the E.U protects unproductive farmers so that they can enjoy their "lifestyle", meanwhile the E.U consumer get's screwed and developing nation farmers are effectively locked out of the E.U market. That policy really goes down well in France. Real POPULAR. Shame it is morally bankrupt.

It is so sanctimonious and dishonest to pretend that your wonderful politicians in Europe, would never screw the general public, or use the media to manipulate public opinion. To say that Britain, America, and Australia are in danger because of dodgy politicians while, Europe is the gold standard of morally rightjous politicians is absolute steaming cow crap.

Mmm this crap smells like hypocrisy! :mrgreen:

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

What utter condescending drivel.

If you want to talk about populist policies, let us look at France or Germany. France's socialist candidate President seems to spouting populist policies about job protection, tarrifs, and 35 hour weeks. Popular with the general public.

Then there is farming subsidies, I suppose America, Britain and Australia are the absolute evil Imperialists screwing the third world. Good to know that the E.U protects unproductive farmers so that they can enjoy their "lifestyle", meanwhile the E.U consumer get's screwed and developing nation farmers are effectively locked out of the E.U market. That policy really goes down well in France. Real POPULAR. Shame it is morally bankrupt.

It is so sanctimonious and dishonest to pretend that your wonderful politicians in Europe, would never screw the general public, or use the media to manipulate public opinion. To say that Britain, America, and Australia are in danger because of dodgy politicians while, Europe is the gold standard of morally rightjous politicians is absolute steaming cow crap.

Mmm this crap smells like hypocrisy! :mrgreen:

I never said Europe should not become a populist democracy as well.

I am just saying the US, UK and Australia, the English axis of war is failing democracies.

I am not saying the EU is best, but at least some of our democracies are functioning. I could mention Spain as a exception whereas they went to war in Iraq even with 80% of their population against.

In the future, war MUST be decided by referendum, the people will have the courage, the will and good judgement to say yes to war at the right time and not before.

 

[Gardener]

We can all clearly see that democracies around the world is failing, when those who have proclaimed to be the first and longest lasting such are starting to show dictatorial tendencies and tyrranical world leadership.

I am naturally talking about the treesome, the UK, the US and Australia. .

Naturally, huh?

Based upon your first paragraph, I expected you to be talking about Iceland.

 

[Feela]

What utter condescending drivel.

Thanks for warning us about your post beforehand.:2wave:

If you want to talk about populist policies, let us look at France or Germany. France's socialist candidate President seems to spouting populist policies about job protection, tarrifs, and 35 hour weeks. Popular with the general public.

Well that is the general point of democracy.

Then there is farming subsidies, I suppose America, Britain and Australia are the absolute evil Imperialists screwing the third world. Good to know that the E.U protects unproductive farmers so that they can enjoy their "lifestyle", meanwhile the E.U consumer get's screwed and developing nation farmers are effectively locked out of the E.U market. That policy really goes down well in France. Real POPULAR. Shame it is morally bankrupt.

Is it or is not the americans and british invading places?

It is so sanctimonious and dishonest to pretend that your wonderful politicians in Europe, would never screw the general public, or use the media to manipulate public opinion. To say that Britain, America, and Australia are in danger because of dodgy politicians while, Europe is the gold standard of morally rightjous politicians is absolute steaming cow crap.

Mmm this crap smells like hypocrisy! :mrgreen:

I don't think he suggested that in particular and btw the gold standard is crap.

 

[Feela]

We can all clearly see that democracies around the world is failing, when those who have proclaimed to be the first and longest lasting such are starting to show dictatorial tendencies and tyrranical world leadership.

I am naturally talking about the treesome, the UK, the US and Australia. These countries are showing extreme tendencies not only in politics but also in the way they make those politics happen. Not only do they manipulate their populations into believing things that are not true for their political cases, but people are starting to see tendencies where these states are completely dominated by the upper leadership, whereas the lower leadership(parliament, senate etc) is just something to use or misuse as you want.

This can surely not be healthy for democracies, especially considering the upper leadership are taking more and more decisions, and not only manipulate the people but also manipulate their lower level leadership to accomplish whatever they want, bad or good. The "old" democracies are showing more and more of a tendency of carefully planned events where top leadership manipulates both the people and their lower government to go along with whatever they want. If they are not succeeding, these leaders will surely use their powers to overturn any decisions.

Its not only a disturbing factor that these democracies are manipulating and deceiving their own lower level politicians and citizens of their nations, but now these states are starting to come together to create some kind of world tyrranical leaderhip of incompetence and suffering. Whatever these people thing if they are right or wrong, they have absolutely no right to dictate other nations fates or opinions.

In my opinion, of all the western democracies, no countries are showing even close tendencies to being tyrranical and dictatorical(and or weakened democracies) than the US, UK and Australia in particular. Unlike their traditional leaders who were proud of democracy the politicans of these country now have so much power that once they get voted as a democratic leader they basically can rule as dictators. And surely, they have throught of EVERY single thing when they get elected, everything from how to manipulate their people via media or their closest politicians. This was not the way democracy was suppose to move, the political models MUST change in order for the world to preserve just rule and influence of the people. Democracy is weakening and perhaps even failing/falling, so its now that we must take action to make new effective political models BASED on democracy.

Here are a list of alternatives ranked in declining order;

Populist democracy: Wherein leaders are choosen as in democracy, but many of their cases/policies are ultimately decided by the people through referedas or E-democracy.
The political model will look somehow different, but will reflect the peoples ability to take control where politicians fails. Heavily dependent on technology.
A few important traits: The most sensitive political cases like going to war, changing the constitution, major law changes, major tax changes, must first be voted by among politicians and approved with democratic majority and then be processed to the people for voting, referenda, direct referenda for ratification.

Popular democracy: Almost the same a pupulist democracy, but just the most sensitive cases have to be ratified by the people. More so than in a democracy. Like war for example or major country decisions.

Grassroot democracy/representative democracy
democracy+.. Where units or peoples representatives in a local level are made an important part of decision making at top level. This could be dont in combination with E-democracy where representatives say their case and are elected in the local community to represent groups of people.


What is sure is that more power needs to move down, and less power need to move up to single individuals, how this should be done, thats the debate/question.

Any kind of real dmoecracy would have to be very decentralised and direct.

 

[LeftyHenry]

frankly I don't see the difference between these "democracies"

 

[Synch]

The de facto form of Democracy when one claims to be Democratic is Liberal Democracy, that's the one you claim is falling in popularity, right Maximus Zeebra?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

The de facto form of Democracy when one claims to be Democratic is Liberal Democracy, that's the one you claim is falling in popularity, right Maximus Zeebra?

Reading only the introduction I would think you are right, because we are already loosing "freedom and individual rights" everywhere where democracy is present. Most notably and the furthest in this process is the English trio, UK, US and Australia, but I can see Europe following in their trail.

What all democratic countries need is a democratic revolution, and this is the right time, with new technologies, globalization and everything. New technology if properly used could make it so that the people could decide more, thus protecting their individual rights and freedom of the people.

I am not saying the people should decide everything, but it should certainly have a very strong voice.

I also want to emphasize that the political would need to change, and that no individual alone should be able to carry more power than the people for example. Every government should have a structure whereas there is not just one leader, but at least 3 supreme leaders who carry the control that 1 leader carry at the moment. Below him should be a very strong government group of people from the parliments, senates, congress etc that should be a second level with strong influence. Below there again should be the congress, parliaments, senates etc.

Such a structure would be more transparent and secure that division of power in government is more balanced.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Reading only the introduction I would think you are right, because we are already loosing "freedom and individual rights" everywhere where democracy is present. Most notably and the furthest in this process is the English trio, UK, US and Australia, but I can see Europe following in their trail.

What all democratic countries need is a democratic revolution, and this is the right time, with new technologies, globalization and everything. New technology if properly used could make it so that the people could decide more, thus protecting their individual rights and freedom of the people.

I am not saying the people should decide everything, but it should certainly have a very strong voice.

I also want to emphasize that the political would need to change, and that no individual alone should be able to carry more power than the people for example. Every government should have a structure whereas there is not just one leader, but at least 3 supreme leaders who carry the control that 1 leader carry at the moment. Below him should be a very strong government group of people from the parliments, senates, congress etc that should be a second level with strong influence. Below there again should be the congress, parliaments, senates etc.

Such a structure would be more transparent and secure that division of power in government is more balanced.

I agree with your notion about individual rights. But unfortunately individual rights and democracy are actually two different things. Considering that democracy is the dictatorship of the masses.

What Europe and Australia need is a strong bill of rights, the limit the power of groups of people asserting force on individuals. I.e negative rights. What you have proposed is really a reorganisation of the European Parliment or the Parliments of those represenatitve nations. Having a seperate congress to a seperate Senate, or having three strong rulers as opposed to one, does not guarentee individual rights.

Lastly America needs politicians that actually follow the seperation of powers created by the U.S constitution. Very few U.S politicians at the Federal or State level seem to understand the seperation of powers, therefore many acts of legislation in the U.S if put towards the supreme court are technically illegal by the standards of the U.S constitution.

Secondly I would advocate the corporate law is completely changed. In terms of commerce, trade (what ever you want to call the exchange of goods and services), the coporation is modern entity, granted and protected by government; giving a business the same legal status as a person. Secondly the legal requirement of corporations to make profit (without mention, that these companies need to follow environmental laws or labour laws) means that corporations are inherently designed to make money and disregard any other factor (The Corporation is an excellent documantary in regards to this). Therefore to reduce corporatism that has influencing society, I advocate change in corporate law.....

Anyway I agree with your overall view that there needs to be a greater thrust to resort or protect individual rights. But I disagree on your methods.

 

[mikhail]

Well i disagree democracy has to have a leader to work.Alot of the general public dont even have a real grasp of the policys the candidates they are voiting in are.You real think the general public knows what to vote on tax issues? It also is proberly the slowest way to run a government i can imagine.So what im saying we have leaders because most people are incapeable of knowing how to run their country.

Also this idea governments are more corrupt than ever is very difficult to prove. Media is bigger than ever people know more about politicians from their private lifes to their former co workers.If winston churchill was around now he would be hounded out of office because of his alcoholism.FDR hid his wheelchair from public view knowing how shallow and judgemental his voters where.You think he could of hid this from the current media? The only person who doesent seem to get attacked by the media is rupert murdock because he owns alot of it.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Well i disagree democracy has to have a leader to work.Alot of the general public dont even have a real grasp of the policys the candidates they are voiting in are.You real think the general public knows what to vote on tax issues? It also is proberly the slowest way to run a government i can imagine.So what im saying we have leaders because most people are incapeable of knowing how to run their country.

Also this idea governments are more corrupt than ever is very difficult to prove. Media is bigger than ever people know more about politicians from their private lifes to their former co workers.If winston churchill was around now he would be hounded out of office because of his alcoholism.FDR hid his wheelchair from public view knowing how shallow and judgemental his voters where.You think he could of hid this from the current media? The only person who doesent seem to get attacked by the media is rupert murdock because he owns alot of it.

Maybe every government should have an "independent analyze board" that work on behalf of the people, these people got to surveillance everything the politicians do, but have no say in policies. These people would only have power to bring politicians to justice and make sure the government follows the laws and constitutions.

Sensitive issues would still need to have some kind of referendum, with new technology, this could be done pretty smoothly. Only certain issues would be resolved with referendums, like decelerations of war, wars in general, changes to constitution, major law changes etc.

All of these would first be decided by governments, then taken to the people for ratification.

Ex.
George W. ****** wants to change something in the constitution, like the patriot act. His government is behind him, but a constitutional change would require 70% of the people to stand behind it.
Then the president want to go to war in Iraq, instead of tricking people, he actually have to present a case to the people who have to approve of action by majority.

The patriot act would never have been approved had it been in a referendum, thats for certain. This act, changes the constitution and brings major law changes.

E-democracy and independent surveillance of government activities, everything recorded. They surveillance US, the people should be allowed to surveillance the politicians somehow, keep them accountable.

 

[MickB]

Hmmm. The UK is failing because political leaders manipulate public and Parliament for their own ends? HOW ELSE CAN THEY HAVE FORCED THEIR COUNTRY FURTHER INTO THE EU? (More so on the Continent where pro-EU propaganda has been more potent and legally enforced, you big silly!)

World tyranny of incompetence? Quite a contradiction in terms there.

We're told that in a populist democracy the 'People' shall decide the most important questions. But who decides what's most important? On what grounds is a question important enough to be asked? And by which political proclivities shall the essence of the questions be framed? And why are lesser issues like tax or foreign wars considered more important than the retention of national independence?

For example, the last referendum the British people had on Europe was in 1975. We were already in, taken there by the 'common market' deception of Edward Heath (who knew the truth as early as 1960). However, we were asked whether we would like to stay in, the question accompanied by a reassuring denial that no 'essential' British sovereignty would be surrendered if we voted Yes.

In recent years, when Euro-Federalism was obvious even to the blinded masses, promises were repeatedly broken by both main parties that a referendum on Britain's entry into the Single Currency would be put to the people.

On top of that, despite rising public concern for our own independence, all three main parties have rejected out of hand any considereation for a new referendum on Europe.

And when the final treaty bonding us to Europe is signed by Tony Blair and Her Majesty The Queen, we won't even be allowed to have political parties campaigning for freedom from the EU. The powers-that-be in Europe have firm ideas on which questions are and aren't important. And the 'populists' outside have made no noise on this issue and continue to glorify the EU.

Tell me again, just who are the international harbingers of misery and bondage??

A few more questions: ....peoples ability to take control where politicians fails... means what exactly? Revolution? And how do you define 'fail'? To act in a non-Leftist manner? Are crap socialist governments immune from this because 'they have the right idea' according to Lefties? Who shall set up the uprising committees and how shall they be funded, regulated and accommodated by statute? Sounds a bit too much like Communism to me.

E-democracy? Voting by computer is one of the latest crackpot ideas to 'get innovatively in touch' with the disillusioned. The idea of connecting with people has been seriously misinterpreted here....

You're a bit obsessed with war aren't you. But what about if there was another Bosnia, with UN-inspired Lefties squealing to go in whilst the Public would be indifferent? Would a large-scale propaganda effort follow? Under the PC Left, such things are a given.

Grassroot democracy/representative democracy? Oh great, more coded euphamisms for bloated, expensive committees to go with all the others. I doubt very much that any public sector worker would be rendered unemployed by a pro-EU beaurocracy fan. I'm surprised that you haven't suggested a more workable solution of genuinely de-centralised local authorities with MPs free from the influence of the whips (and with regional, as well as local, councillor candidates having to rely on personal reputation and ability to get elected, rather than by being subject to the party line and selection by party committee).

That's all for now. I've to get my lunch on.
_______
Maximus Zeebra, Educator? Indoctrinator is more the world. Educators are neutral.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

Hmmm. The UK is failing because political leaders manipulate public and Parliament for their own ends? HOW ELSE CAN THEY HAVE FORCED THEIR COUNTRY FURTHER INTO THE EU? (More so on the Continent where pro-EU propaganda has been more potent and legally enforced, you big silly!)

World tyranny of incompetence? Quite a contradiction in terms there.

We're told that in a populist democracy the 'People' shall decide the most important questions. But who decides what's most important? On what grounds is a question important enough to be asked? And by which political proclivities shall the essence of the questions be framed? And why are lesser issues like tax or foreign wars considered more important than the retention of national independence?

For example, the last referendum the British people had on Europe was in 1975. We were already in, taken there by the 'common market' deception of Edward Heath (who knew the truth as early as 1960). However, we were asked whether we would like to stay in, the question accompanied by a reassuring denial that no 'essential' British sovereignty would be surrendered if we voted Yes.

In recent years, when Euro-Federalism was obvious even to the blinded masses, promises were repeatedly broken by both main parties that a referendum on Britain's entry into the Single Currency would be put to the people.

On top of that, despite rising public concern for our own independence, all three main parties have rejected out of hand any considereation for a new referendum on Europe.

And when the final treaty bonding us to Europe is signed by Tony Blair and Her Majesty The Queen, we won't even be allowed to have political parties campaigning for freedom from the EU. The powers-that-be in Europe have firm ideas on which questions are and aren't important. And the 'populists' outside have made no noise on this issue and continue to glorify the EU.

Tell me again, just who are the international harbingers of misery and bondage??

A few more questions: ....peoples ability to take control where politicians fails... means what exactly? Revolution? And how do you define 'fail'? To act in a non-Leftist manner? Are crap socialist governments immune from this because 'they have the right idea' according to Lefties? Who shall set up the uprising committees and how shall they be funded, regulated and accommodated by statute? Sounds a bit too much like Communism to me.

E-democracy? Voting by computer is one of the latest crackpot ideas to 'get innovatively in touch' with the disillusioned. The idea of connecting with people has been seriously misinterpreted here....

You're a bit obsessed with war aren't you. But what about if there was another Bosnia, with UN-inspired Lefties squealing to go in whilst the Public would be indifferent? Would a large-scale propaganda effort follow? Under the PC Left, such things are a given.

Grassroot democracy/representative democracy? Oh great, more coded euphamisms for bloated, expensive committees to go with all the others. I doubt very much that any public sector worker would be rendered unemployed by a pro-EU beaurocracy fan. I'm surprised that you haven't suggested a more workable solution of genuinely de-centralised local authorities with MPs free from the influence of the whips (and with regional, as well as local, councillor candidates having to rely on personal reputation and ability to get elected, rather than by being subject to the party line and selection by party committee).

That's all for now. I've to get my lunch on.
_______
Maximus Zeebra, Educator? Indoctrinator is more the world. Educators are neutral.

Yeah, it was of course the Germans who forced the UK into the EU, not the UK politicians or people.
Germany threatened the UK with a gunpoint, obviously. Its not our fault the UK are incompetent and EU ignorant skeptics.

The UK is skeptical towards everything and still think their tiny Island has influence and power in the world.
:rofl

 

[MickB]

No need for sarcasm. Anyway, it's mis-placed.

Yes indeed, it was UK politicians who wanted into Europe. And they lied to the people about Europe's true intentions.

Incompetent skeptics? Do I detect a touch of arrogance towards people who do not think on your wavelength? A jolly good job we don't have your new brand of political adminstration in action, otherwise the insults against the British people would be even weightier than now!

If the British are sceptical it's because we've had decades of bullplop from our own and international politicians to endure.

Britain does still have influence. It's capable of running its own affairs without any other nation or international organisation tying its hands and we still enjoy the respect which a long reputation of being world players has given us.

PS - Where are the answers to my questions then? You're keen to mouth off, so let's have them!

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

We're told that in a populist democracy the 'People' shall decide the most important questions. But who decides what's most important? On what grounds is a question important enough to be asked? And by which political proclivities shall the essence of the questions be framed? And why are lesser issues like tax or foreign wars considered more important than the retention of national independence?

Thats the idea yes, I would suppose politicians drew up the things that are most important and categorize which ones need a referendum to go through and with what kind of majority. After they drew up this plan it would have to be approved in majority referendum.
I never said issues such as the European Union should not be voted on, they should, but we are all members now, so lets work together, eh?
I bitterly realize that no European nation will be a popular democracy before we have become a federation, so I think what we need to fight for is a European federation that operates as a popular democracy.
All EU members have national independence, but they have choosen to hand over much of their responsibilities, that function in a continental setting, over to the European Union.

For example, the last referendum the British people had on Europe was in 1975. We were already in, taken there by the 'common market' deception of Edward Heath (who knew the truth as early as 1960). However, we were asked whether we would like to stay in, the question accompanied by a reassuring denial that no 'essential' British sovereignty would be surrendered if we voted Yes.

Thats bad for your country indeed. All the other countries joined the EU on referendums, where the people decided. If the Brits are so stupid they don't read about what they are voting for in a neutral source, then thats very bad for the Brits. "Essential", yes, thats when the Brits should have stopped listening to this guy and got their independent sources on the issue, I am sure the newspapers wrote about it. But again, if the Brits are too dumb to do this, then they deserve it. Now you are in the Union, so lets fight for the best possible union. Deception is normal in politics, how many times have not the people been "fooled" to choose the wrong leader?

In recent years, when Euro-Federalism was obvious even to the blinded masses, promises were repeatedly broken by both main parties that a referendum on Britain's entry into the Single Currency would be put to the people.

I fail to see how that promise was broken since the UK is using the pound and will use it until a referendum has approved the Euro.

On top of that, despite rising public concern for our own independence, all three main parties have rejected out of hand any consideration for a new referendum on Europe.

Of course, thats like voting over again for your constitution, its absurd.
If Britain left the EU, it would be devastating for UK global ambitions, and the UK would become a minor player in a world dominated by the US, China, India and blocks of nations like the EU, ASEAS and MERCUSOR. In such a world that it WILL become, the UK would mean nothing, this would be very bad for the UK.

Talking about the UK, isnt the UK breaking up? Why have there been no referendums on the United Kingdom?

And when the final treaty bonding us to Europe is signed by Tony Blair and Her Majesty The Queen, we won't even be allowed to have political parties campaigning for freedom from the EU. The powers-that-be in Europe have firm ideas on which questions are and aren't important. And the 'populists' outside have made no noise on this issue and continue to glorify the EU.

Hey, you know that is a lie, you have the UKIP for example, those crazy nutcases. The Queen is the almighty of the UK, you have sworn alliance to her, citizens of the UK are nothing but the Queens servants.

The EU is far from glorified, the media is rather speculating on the negatives, while all the good things the EU has done have been forgotten or overlooked, ESPECIALLY in the UK.

Tell me again, just who are the international harbingers of misery and bondage??

Uhhm, the Queen and Michael Caine in the same bedroom?

A few more questions: ....peoples ability to take control where politicians fails... means what exactly? Revolution? And how do you define 'fail'? To act in a non-Leftist manner? Are crap socialist governments immune from this because 'they have the right idea' according to Lefties? Who shall set up the uprising committees and how shall they be funded, regulated and accommodated by statute? Sounds a bit too much like Communism to me.

What? Communism, thats absurd.. Letting the people have the final say in some areas and some decisions of politics, comparing this to communism? LOL.

E-democracy? Voting by computer is one of the latest crackpot ideas to 'get innovatively in touch' with the disillusioned. The idea of connecting with people has been seriously misinterpreted here....

If society get some guts and speed up progress, the infrastructure will be good enough to make this possible. You are a little old fashion and backwards looking, aren't you? Thats why you are so obsessed with nationalism and independence and all of this.

You're a bit obsessed with war aren't you. But what about if there was another Bosnia, with UN-inspired Lefties squealing to go in whilst the Public would be indifferent? Would a large-scale propaganda effort follow? Under the PC Left, such things are a given.

I don't like war, if war is for the wrong reason its completely unheard of and the doings of evil. The evil doctrine of "Preemptive" war is an example of evil.

Interesting fact. Did you know that before the Iraq war it just happened to be so that 70% of Americans believed Saddam was strongly connected with the WTC attacks. *THINK*THINK*THINK*

 

[MickB]

A few nice points, thanks for 'em.

"I would suppose politicians drew up the things that are most important and categorize which ones need a referendum to go through and with what kind of majority." Indeed. But I ask again, on what criteria, both political and constitutional, would such considerations be based? Or would it be very much an ad-hoc approach (which it would be, left to most politicians)? And which questions would be significant with their not being asked? And how many more serious or controversial questions could be 'buried' beneath a series of lesser issues? Politics and politicians, the rascals!

"we are all members now, so lets work together, eh?" Your approach is very 'sod the prols, we're in now and they can't do anything about it'! How very peoples' friend!

"I think what we need to fight for is a European federation that operates as a popular democracy". But I'm afraid that's a contradiction in terms. It was always the primrary goal of the united Europe to be a big shot on the world stage. Being economically strong and putting an end to war and all that spiel was just a smokescreen. A federal Europe causes more friction that it prevents by needlessly initiating more debates and operational clashes between nations than is necessary. And once in the European Union you can't get out once the final treaty towards total political and economic union has been signed. It's rule from the top-down and will never change.

"If the Brits are so stupid they don't read about what they are voting for in a neutral source, then thats very bad for the Brits." That's rather arrogant and presumptuous. That assumes that the media have some magical insight which transcends what they're told by agencies, contacts and political movers, and are somehow pure and above all the dodgy dealing and biased politicising which pervades them. The people have gotten wiser to this now, which is why the media seems so much more biased than it was before. The people were given false information almost right across the board until the Thatcherites started saying again and again what union would really mean. And Mrs. Thatcher stalled as much as she could. And if the political parties say they will stand firm yet actually cave in then the people are pretty powerless anyway.

"the UK is using the pound and will use it until a referendum has approved the Euro." Once the referendum result has come in, a result most political leaders fear they would lose, even greater pressure would be brought to bear to resist the Euro-fedaral system as a whole. The Eurofedaralist system is what most of our ruling class are keen for yet most of the people are not. Although a referendum result is not legally binding to a government, the masses would certainly remember a large scale government defiance come election day. Which is why political leaders would rather avoid the fuss of having one in the first place, despite the fact that both John Major and Tony Blair promised one.

"Of course, thats like voting over again for your constitution, its absurd." Not really. Particularly in the case of the European Constitution, rejected twice in referenda, such a move towards further European union robs the ability for a nation to act on its own behalf. Common Law is usurped and our own constitution downgraded. Of course it's important.

"If Britain left the EU, it would be devastating for UK global ambitions". Another myth. Apart from the obvious advantage of not being a subserviant territory, Britain is still a world leader in finance. London is still a main hub of activity, not to mention the fact that British fishing and farming could be freed from the restrictive practices of EU agricultural and fishery legislation. These are just 3 examples. Britain's status of 4th largest economy would be totally unharmed by merely trading with the EU as a seperate entity rather than being a fully submerged member province. No less than the Adam Smith Institute confirms this.

"Talking about the UK, isnt the UK breaking up? Why have there been no referendums on the United Kingdom?" Wales and Scotland were presented with devolution referenda in 1997 and 1998. Welsh and Scottish parliaments have been set up, though these still have their central subserviance to Westminster. Scots and English hold greivous political viewpoints of each other based on erroneous perceptions of status.

"Hey, you know that is a lie, you have the UKIP for example, those crazy nutcases. The Queen is the almighty of the UK, you have sworn alliance to her, citizens of the UK are nothing but the Queens servants." Wanting to retain freedom and sovereinty is barmy is it? That's a great advert for encouraging EU intergration that is! And your sentiment regarding the Queen says a lot about your character and the character of the EU - We are the bosses, you are the servants, get used to what we foist.

"What? Communism, thats absurd.. Letting the people have the final say in some areas and some decisions of politics, comparing this to communism?" OK, I'll ask the question in a different way: By what mechanism and by whose values can it be said that a government has failed and by what method shall the people 'take control'? Take Control? Take Control of what, in what measure and how?

"If society get some guts and speed up progress, the infrastructure will be good enough to make this possible. You are a little old fashion and backwards looking, aren't you? Thats why you are so obsessed with nationalism and independence and all of this." Anybody with the determination can rig up computers, just as anybody can hack them and tamper with them. We have enough electoral fraud as it is without opening the way for more.

Nationalism and Independence are backward-looking concepts? That's probably why we fought two world wars and a cold war in the last 100 years to preserve the rights of nations to have such gifts.

"I don't like war, if war is for the wrong reason its completely unheard of and the doings of evil. The evil doctrine of "Preemptive" war is an example of evil." I meant that as in you kept on mentioning war as a subject to be put as a referenda subject. I asked if the situation arose in which the leadership really wanted war, and the people didn't, what would stop a government lauching a massive propaganda drive? As you know, some European nations can have a greater influence over media organs.

Besides, pre-emtive strikes are only evil if the man behind it is malevolent. A truly pre-emptive strike is defensive because it lands the punch before the opponent rather than instead of.

 

[tapsearcher]

We suggest reading The Trap by Sir James Goldsmith. He was a corporate raider who tried to take companies over for pennies on the dollar. His take over of the BF Goodrich company was noted widely in the media. However, he changed his ways seeing how the world was being handled by money and greed. He was born in Paris with an Anglo-French heritage. He was member of Parliment and started the Referendum Party in England - much like the first Reform Party in the USA.

He was one of the first to opposed Globalization and Free Trade. As with other anti-Free Traders, he was charged with "protectionism" which was absurd because he was for trade but not trade that is based on moving production of place to place anywhere in the world for the sake of cheaper and cheaper labor. He knew there will always be someone who will work for less and the elite groupings focused on power, money and greed will only use them for their own selfish interests. They seem do not care about the common good. The world has found that the greatest good for the greatest number is such a small group of elitists.

Goldsmith took on the basic belief of Adam Smith who held labor as something sacred and the core of all societies. The attack and degradation of human dignity in the work day is the main issue of our times. Democracies can not sustain when workers have no voice in their destinies. History tells us they will respond in radical ways just like in South America where a Populist movement is growing but being steered to the Left not so much by the Left but Free-Traders who want everyone to conform to a new type of Globalism. The Left is the only known alternative for many.

Many argue the term Globalism is a wrong word to describe Globalization but no matter how you look at it, it is a new "ism". This "ism" is in the process of being defined. It is born without the background most other "isms" have.
It is a stew of actions and utilitarianism rather than thought. In the process, we have elite forces leading the way where power, money and greed are mixed with Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Totalitarianism and God knows what. It is a new powerful stew where anything is used for the sake of power, money and greed. Idealism of any kind has been smothered.

This new "ism" is also a new form of Colonialism where nations find they must protect their interests worldwide. So called Free Trade and Globalization have bred terrorism and wars because of this.

If you go deep into any conflict in the world , you will find that workers dignity is being attacked on a global basis.
The question to ask is who said we had to compete like this in a global arena.
It is obvious, Free Trade and Globalization has not evolved in any natural economic way but has been driven by external forces.

Perhaps the greatest Populist was Teddy Roosevelt being converted by his anti-trust beliefs. He said the greatest fear he had for American is when government and big business merge. This is happening throughout the world with the end result being high tech armies being defeated by human bombs.

For more information, we suggest reading not only reading The Trap but several books by Manuel Castell about Globalization, The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins in comparison to The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman and Dr Pat Choate. There are many other references but these seem to be the best. We like Chuck Harder and J.D. Cash overviews the best and you can search under these names for deeper insights. If you go into these books with a Left or Right bias, you will miss the points. A new objective approach is best.

Democracy is not dying. There is a conversion process going where people of good will saying elite groupings are trying to steal it from the common man and woman. It is not a Right or Left debate anymore. It is all about saving human dignity in the workday and enhancing it the best we know how.

See Tapart News and Art that Talks at Tapsearch.com - Tapart News and Art that Talks
Tapsearcher searches the Upside Down Flat World of Friedman EDN: Class: The Educated Class vs. Real Life Experience

Please pass on this post and the above sites for all who are for human dignity in and the destiny of all and not just a few.