Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

British Parliament to debate banning Donald Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by redcoat View Post
    They don't have a choice, some muppet made it a law that any petition reaching a certain number had to be debated in Westminster.
    Hi Redcoat

    No, they have to considered for debate in Parliament, there's no 'had to' about it. In this specific case the context/content and sheer volume seemed to necessitate a debate, however frivolous we both agree it was.

    Regards

    Andy H
    "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

    "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

    Comment


    • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
      Never thought I'd hear myself say this, but y'all have too much democracy.
      Hi Slick

      You have the same sort of thing in the US, just that it doesn't get the possibility of it being directly linked to a debate in Congress etc
      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

      Basically both the UK & US versions are a form of lobbying for the masses rather than the monied or well connected few

      Regards

      Andy H
      Last edited by Andy H; 22 Jan 16, 09:10.
      "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

      "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

      Comment


      • And it's much more civilised than having a mob - ooohps democratic protest outside Downing Street or on Pennsylvania Avenue and makes sure that the powers that be know what's on people's minds. There has long been a system whereby a paper based petition was presented to parliament if it got over a certain size and as long ago as the early 70s consideration was given to computerising this to make the process less clunky. However the consultant assigned by CCTA to the Palace of Westminster (me) had to tell the House of Commons Committee that the time was not yet ripe. Some of those petition were physically huge. They used to get stored in the archives (in the tower opposite the Big Ben tower) and FAIK are still there
        Last edited by MarkV; 22 Jan 16, 09:19.
        Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
        Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Andy H View Post
          Hi Slick

          No, getting to a certain level means that it will considered for debate on the floor. So far two petitions who reached the 100k plus haven't been debated and as I stated earlier they can be seen here:-
          https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...te=not_debated
          18 have been debated
          https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?state=debated
          whilst two are awaiting debate
          https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...waiting_debate
          In addition just over 2,500 petitions have been rejected as pure crap or unworthy https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?state=rejected

          Regards

          Andy H
          Thanks mate for the dope. You know me, I like to crack wise (or take the p*ss out of you, in Brit-speak ) but there's no substitute for factual accuracy. So I perused your links, and a certain . . . . inconsistency struck me. This link lists the petitions that have been rejected for parliamentary consideration. Some of them are undeniably silly, like having the newly discovered planet named in David Bowie's honor, or changing the UK's national anthem to David Bowie's Heroes. (Based on the volume of Bowie petitions and their close proximity to us in time, I'm led to conclude that the sheer volume of these parliamentary petitions is enormous.) A couple of them, however, are certainly no sillier than the Trump issue, but they've nevertheless been rejected. Petitions calling for prohibitions against visits to the UK by US Pres Barack Obama, and the Saudi royal family, decriminalization of women carrying pepper spray, and mandating compulsory licensing of dogs were all rejected on the grounds that, "thereís already a petition about this issue. We cannot accept a new petition when we already have one about a very similar issue. You are more likely to get action on this issue if you sign and share a single petition," even though none of those petitions garnered nearly as much ink as the recent Trump issue. A petition calling for the deportation of "all immigrants who preach hate" was rejected because:

          Itís not clear what the petition is asking the UK Government or Parliament to do. The Government already has the power to deport people when the Home Secretary has decided that their removal from the country is 'conducive to the public good'. A court can also recommend deportation if someone is convicted of a criminal offence with a prison term.
          when clearly the petitioner feels that the current British policy on the subject is unsatisfactory. Yet another petition calling for the reversal of a "ban on eurospectic ministers from speaking in the House of Commons" on the grounds that "itís about something that the UK Government or Parliament is not responsible for," when clearly the petitioner believes that the ban is the result of PM Cameron's fiat. It appears that Parliament's enforcement of its own standards has been rather . . . arbitrary.

          Originally posted by Andy H View Post
          Hi Slick

          You have the same sort of thing in the US, just that it doesn't get the possibility of it being directly linked to a debate in Congress etc
          https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/
          Not quite. Those petitions to the President can only become a matter of congressional interest if a member of Congress can introduce their matter to the floor, as the President has not the power to introduce anything into Congress. In other words, at least from a legal standpoint, petitioning the President is about as impactful as petitioning the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, at least with regards to legislative debate.

          Originally posted by MarkV View Post
          And it's much more civilised than having a mob - ooohps democratic protest outside Downing Street or on Pennsylvania Avenue and makes sure that the powers that be know what's on people's minds.
          Is it? Are these asinine petitions prima fascia evidence of "superior civilization"? How many people will riot over the name of the new planet, or nine-tenths of the other crap which constitute the content of these petitions? From where I sit these petitions do nothing but give voice to the crazy, the crackpots, the perpetual malcontents, and the hard-core unemployable. I'm sure that at least 90% of those UK petitions don't make the news in any way, shape, or form -- just like the 99.99999999% of petitions to the White House that are ultimately filed with "Detective McCann."



          And in England at least riots are a semi regular pastime, so clearly the outlet of petitioning government isn't relieving that pressure. No sir: with paper petitions or without, our veneer of "civilization" is in reality membrane thin.
          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X