|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
So Jeremy cannot be expected to speak about what he thinks should or shouldn't happen because that would be 'a prediction'. I see.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:So Jeremy cannot be expected to speak about what he thinks should or shouldn't happen because that would be 'a prediction'. being asked if you think something is inevitable is not the same as being asked if that thing should happen. they are different questions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
Jose posted:https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...post-1991/7415/ A rather dubious article that carefully avoids putting things into any sort of historical context.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:being asked if you think something is inevitable is not the same as being asked if that thing should happen. And his answer was 'if it happens then it should happen'. Which is horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
the right to self determination is a fundamental one
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:the right to self determination is a fundamental one Then why do I have to be governed by a Tory government I didn't vote for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
that's not what self-determination means in this context. The scottish people have the right to determine if they are an independent country or not. The UK people have the right to choose their government, they chose a Tory one. Your wish to be ruled by a government other than Tories is irrelevant. Now if you wish to say the North of England becomes it's own country, or Middlesbrough an independent city state you could campaign for the right for the people in those areas to determine that. For someone who talks about politics an awful lot, you really don't have a good grasp of some of the fundamental concepts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
Really? Does Scotland or Middlesbrough have the 'right' to be independent? Do states of the US have the right to secede? Where is this right enshrined? I suspect you're misremembering something you read about a UN charter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Upstanding Neighbourhoods' Fash CYOA showed up again, this time as a sponsored post. I'd never seen this before. This is really, really lame. It's like babby's first fascism is bad video. So heavy handed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
They do have that right Pissflaps, all of the examples you gave. It's a fundamental concept of politics since world war one and enshrined in the Charters of the UN since it's inception. Now granted it hasn't always worked out in practice, but theoretically it's a fundamental right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Really? Does Scotland or Middlesbrough have the 'right' to be independent? Do states of the US have the right to secede? Having already had one referendum on the issue, we (the UK) have clearly conceded that Scotland has a right to independence if it wants it. Scotland's status as a nation hasn't changed since then; if the wishes of its inhabitants have, then why shouldn't they become independent?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I'd never seen this before. This is really, really lame. It's like babby's first fascism is bad video. So heavy handed. I went full fash in that and I'm now a fascist god-king of Wessex
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:It's a fundamental concept of politics since world war one and enshrined in the Charters of the UN since it's inception. Should be a doddle for you to back this claim up then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Having already had one referendum on the issue, we (the UK) have clearly conceded that Scotland has a right to independence if it wants it. Scotland's status as a nation hasn't changed since then; if the wishes of its inhabitants have, then why shouldn't they become independent? Perhaps, but that's an internal choice of the UK, not bowing to some universal law that says political sub units of states must be given independence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
e: I changed my mind, I want off Mr. Flaps' wild ride.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:That sounds rather odd, I wouldn't have thought you'd need to renew your lease until your notice period comes up. IIRC the landlord only has the right to do viewings in the last month before the end of your contract, and has to provide 24 hours notice - you can refuse permission when you receive that notice if it's not convenient. Taear posted:It's a shame that nobody will see this and nothing matters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Should be a doddle for you to back this claim up then? It's what world war II was fought about : A. Historical Background 1 The political origins of the modern concept of self-determination can be traced back to the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America of 4 July 1776, which proclaimed that governments derived ‘their just powers from the consent of the governed’ and that ‘whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it’. The principle of self-determination was further shaped by the leaders of the French Revolution, whose doctrine of popular sovereignty, at least initially, required renunciation of all wars of conquest and contemplated annexation[s] of territory to France only after plebiscites. 2 During the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century the principle of self-determination was interpreted by nationalist movements as meaning that each nation had the right to constitute an independent State and that only nationally homogeneous States were legitimate. This so-called ‘principle of nationalities’ provided the basis for the formation of a number of new States and finally, at the end of World War I, for the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman Empires. The principle of self-determination was also prominent in the unification processes of Germany and Italy, which to a large degree were based on national characteristics in which plebiscites played an important part (Germany, Unification of). 3 Self-determination further evolved when it was espoused by the socialist movement and the Bolshevik revolution. Defined and developed by Lenin and Stalin, the principle of self-determination was represented as one of international law. It should, however, be mentioned that the right of self-determination in Soviet doctrine existed only for cases where it served the cause of class conflict and so-called socialist justice; it was only a tactical means to serve the aims of world communism and not an end in itself. 4 During World War I, the President of the United States Wilson championed the principle of self-determination as it became crystallized in the Fourteen Points of Wilson (1918). Although this proposal formed the basis of the peace negotiations with the Central Powers, self-determination was subsequently far from fully realized in the Paris peace treaties. It was, however, reflected in a number of plebiscites held by the Allies in some disputed areas and it was one of the basic components of a series of treaties concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations for the protection of minorities (see also Minority Protection System between World War I and World War II). Finally, in Art. 22 Covenant of the League of Nations, the mandates system was devised as a compromise solution between the ideal of self-determination and the interests of the administrative powers. However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept. This was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and its expert advisors in the Ĺland Islands dispute of 1920–21 even though, in the particular circumstances of the case, autonomy rights were granted to the population concerned (Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Ĺland Islands Question 5). B. Manifestations under the Aegis of the United Nations 1. Incorporation into the Charter of the United Nations 5 The principle of self-determination was invoked on many occasions during World War II. It was also proclaimed in the Atlantic Charter (1941) (Declaration of Principles of 14 August 1941), in which President Roosevelt of the United States and Prime Minister Churchill of the United Kingdom declared, inter alia, that they desired to see ‘no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned’ (Principle 2 Atlantic Charter), that they respected ‘the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live’ (Principle 3 Atlantic Charter) and that they wished to see ‘sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them’ (Principle 3 Atlantic Charter). The provisions of the Atlantic Charter were restated in the Declaration by United Nations (United Nations (UN)) signed on 1 January 1942, in the Moscow Declaration of 1943 and in other important instruments of the time. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873 Also relevant: (a) Right to Self-Determination: Instances 14 (i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute. In the peace treaties after World War I, and in the cases of Kashmir (after 1948), the Saar Territory (1955), and Algeria’s struggle for independence, the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, and in the Agreement on Ending War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (1973) the parties expressly recognized the South Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination. 15 (ii) Self-determination—as a result of the practice of the UN under Chapters XI to XIII UN Charter—clearly emerged as the legal foundation of the law of decolonization. As expressly affirmed by the ICJ both in Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion) (1971) para. 52 and in Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) (1975) paras 54–59, it became applicable to non-self-governing territories, trust territories and mandates, notwithstanding the differences and the qualifications of the respective constituent instruments (South West Africa/Namibia [Advisory Opinions and Judgments]; Western Sahara [Advisory Opinion]). As such, it includes the right of the population of a territory freely to determine its future political status. Furthermore, the Friendly Relations Declaration recognized that the territory of a colony or other non-self-governing territory has, under the UN Charter, reached a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it. It is generally concluded that, as a consequence of this qualification, the use of force to prevent the exercise of self-determination of a colonial people has become unlawful (see also Use of Force, Prohibition of), as has the assistance of third parties to the metropolitan powers in their effort to frustrate self-determination. On the other hand, it should be noted that armed support of colonial liberation movements is not considered legal by a number of States and was not recognized as such, for lack of consensus, in the Friendly Relations Declaration. Furthermore, it must be noted that the uti possidetis doctrine guided the process of decolonization and thus contributed to the realization of self-determination in that it guaranteed that borders between former colonies—or non-self-governing territories—or administrative borders that were drawn during colonization, would be maintained (see Frontier Dispute [Burkina Faso/Mali] paras 20–25; Frontier Dispute Case [Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali]). 16 (iii) Self-determination might be considered to apply, as was suggested by the Commission of Rapporteurs in the Ĺland Islands case in 1921, in situations where the existence and extension of territorial sovereignty is altogether uncertain. 17 (iv) Self-determination includes the right of a people of an existing State to choose freely their own political system and to pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development. As such it does not, in light of the current state of international law, impose on all States the duty to introduce or maintain a democratic form of government, but essentially refers to the principle of sovereign equality of States and the prohibition of intervention which are already part of international law (Intervention, Prohibition of; States, Sovereign Equality). However, recent scholarly work suggests a more nuanced approach to self-determination in this regard (see paras 33–39 and 41–44 below).
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
Which bit do you think says that parts of states have the right to not be a part of it anymore? And where have you copied and pasted it from?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
‘the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live' if you no longer wish to be part of a state, you don't have to be. But obviously depending on the state you are part of it can be hard work to become independent. now that state might fight back, and a lot of it depends on geo-politics but the break up of the former Yugoslavia is an example of people no longer wanting to be part of a state and new ones being created. States are not immutable immovable objects, they're legal constructs and can be altered. I posted the link right there Pissflaps, here it is again for you: http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873 It's a well cited source. Seriously, this isn't a contentious issue. It's why for me the Declaration of Independence is a far more powerful document than the US Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:‘the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live' You're quoting things and not saying where they're from. Where is this quote from?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:It's what world war II was fought about : Why doesn't the UN guarantee my right to a life in UKMT free from pointless arguments with Pissflaps over pedantry & boring minutia?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
That's from the Atlantic Charter of 1941, Principle 2 and it was restated a few times: 5 "The principle of self-determination was invoked on many occasions during World War II. It was also proclaimed in the Atlantic Charter (1941) (Declaration of Principles of 14 August 1941), in which President Roosevelt of the United States and Prime Minister Churchill of the United Kingdom declared, inter alia, that they desired to see ‘no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned’ (Principle 2 Atlantic Charter), that they respected ‘the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live’ (Principle 3 Atlantic Charter) and that they wished to see ‘sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them’ (Principle 3 Atlantic Charter). The provisions of the Atlantic Charter were restated in the Declaration by United Nations (United Nations (UN)) signed on 1 January 1942, in the Moscow Declaration of 1943 and in other important instruments of the time." http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873 If we look at the UN Charter: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/ 2 - To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; self determination of peoples is enshrined in the second paragraph of the UN Charter Chapter 1. And self-determination is ‘the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live'. It's that simple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Why doesn't the UN guarantee my right to a life in UKMT free from pointless arguments with Pissflaps over pedantry & boring minutia? Teaching the slow takes time. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Why doesn't the UN guarantee my right to a life in UKMT free from pointless arguments with Pissflaps over pedantry & boring minutia? You have the right to form your own UKMT if you can get enough people to recognise it, but keeping out Pissflaps is something you have to handle yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:self determination of peoples is enshrined in the second paragraph of the UN Charter Chapter 1. That sentence you've 'quoted' isn't in the UN Charter. Here's the closest I could find: quote:To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; See this is talking about the rights of UN members - nations - to have self determination ie not be invaded by another state. That's why the UN had something to say about, say, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but absolutely gently caress all to do with Scottish, Catalan or Cornish independence. You might insist that self determination is some sort of natural right, but making up UN charters does not strengthen your case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
It's from the Atlantic Charter that pre-dated the UN Charter, but informed it as many of the same actors were involved in it. Self-determination is NOT the right not to be invaded, that's a gross misunderstanding. IF the scotish had voted for independence in a process recognised by the british government then the UN states would have recognised Scotland as an independent nation. The UN doesn't have to get involved in the process of self-determination, rather it has said it will recognise it when it occurs. The first Article of the UN is not explicitly talking about member countries, it sets out the purpose of the UN, Article 2 is where they start to talk about members. JFairfax fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Appealing to charters and declarations isn't really necessary when you can point to a much more fundamental rule of international relations: if you can get away with it then it is legal. This is why Nepal does not have the right to self-determination while Taiwan apparently does despite the PRC's protests. Kosovo probably just about does but we haven't quite decided yet. Scotland would have the right if the people of Scotland agreed on it in a referendum, Middlesbrough most likely not without a couple decades laying the groundwork first. Cornwall, we'll be finding out shortly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Yup, correct big scary monsters. You have to be powerful enough to make your push for independence stick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:IF the scotish had voted for independence in a process recognised by the british government then the UN states would have recognised Scotland as an independent nation. You're contradicting yourself. If a requirement for self determination of a part of a country is that the country they wish to secede from itself recognises the process, then that is not self determination. big scary monsters posted:Appealing to charters and declarations isn't really necessary when you can point to a much more fundamental rule of international relations: if you can get away with it then it is legal. JFairfax posted:Yup, correct big scary monsters. Yes, he is correct - largely because he's saying the opposite of you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Scotland cannot unilaterally declare independence. All talk of natural rights is kinda irrelevant, what matters is what recognition the UK government grants, and whether an independent Scotland can find a sufficiently powerful sponsor in the (unlikely) case where the UK is hostile. If an independence referendum passes, May could quite simply say 'nah', and she'll have to answer to the British legal system and the electorate, not to the UN. I can't really think of any historical examples of the UN assisting in the breaking away of parts of the state, aside from cases like e.g. Korea where they were pretty transparently acting according to a country's geopolitical interests. It took decades for the UN to recognize the PRC as legitimate because the US saw it as inconvenient. EDIT: If it *is* the case that the UK has to grant Scotland a second referendum and abide by the result, it would be more or less solely a function of the UK's prevailing political beliefs. Fangz fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Scotland cannot unilaterally declare independence. All talk of natural rights is kinda irrelevant, what matters is what recognition the UK government grants, and whether an independent Scotland can find a sufficiently powerful sponsor in the (unlikely) case where the UK is hostile. If an independence referendum passes, May could quite simply say 'nah', and she'll have to answer to the British legal system and the electorate, not to the UN. I can't really think of any historical examples of the UN assisting in the breaking away of parts of the state, aside from cases like e.g. Korea where they were pretty transparently acting according to a country's geopolitical interests. She'd also have to answer to a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:She'd also have to answer to a civil war. If it escalates up to that, yeah. But again it's about her decisions (and Scotland's decisions) and the consequences of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You're contradicting yourself. If a requirement for self determination of a part of a country is that the country they wish to secede from itself recognises the process, then that is not self determination. It's not a requirement, see Taiwan. It just makes it a lot easier and with less bloodshed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
These really are exciting times in UK politics. This must have been how people felt under Cromwell: bewildered and terrified.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Yes, he is correct - largely because he's saying the opposite of you. he really isn't, I stated repeatedly that sadly the theory of self-determination doesn't always match with the reality on the ground. Palestine would be an obvious example of this, a people that desperately want a country but are thwarted by powerful forces. Or all those left wing governments the USA overthrew. Something being a right and those rights routinely being abused or ignored are not exclusive things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:It's not a requirement, see Taiwan. Why hasn't the UN recognised Catalonia as an independent state?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:It's not a requirement, see Taiwan. Yes, see Taiwan, which is legally not separate from China and is recognised by no major nation. Scotland really does not want to become a new Taiwan. Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Why hasn't the UN recognised Catalonia as an independent state? Because it isn't one yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Because it isn't one yet. ...because it isn't recognised as one. Why hasn't there been any UN resolutions demanding Catalan independence?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
Fangz posted:Yes, see Taiwan, which is legally not separate from China and is recognised by no major nation. practically speaking Taiwan is an independent country. Come on, the US relations with the place are pretty normalised.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2017 13:11
|
|