#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Britain is taking a major step toward authoritarianism.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/the-uk-is-going-after-big-tech-over-harmful-content.html
Add New Argument |
It's hard because most people don't even pay attention to these things. Or if they do they often just read the headlines "Oh reduce harmful content online? I don't like harm!". If the government starts deciding what is and isn't true it's on a level with Chinese internet censorship. 1
point
No one Al. You said that leaving it up to individuals is the source of our current problem. That belief is the problem. Asking “who should decide?” Is the wrong question. “What gives anyone the Right to decide what legal material is acceptable for me?” Is the correct question. The answer is Nothing. OK. So what are you bitching about?? You want the "problem" to stay, get WORSE, as long as everyone is allowed to do whatever damage they want to do to society. I, respectfully, disagree. Elected persons should go by the MAJORITY OPINION and do what they can to stop those who are ABUSING their freedoms! OUR freedoms! Elected persons that do NOT follow the majority opinion should be voted out BY that majority and get someone who will. It takes time, but, that's democracy. Eventually, it's the MAJORITY of society that should win, not the abusers! Your "solution" is open-ended, it SOLVES nothing, except the problems abusers have treading on the rights of others. As "IKE" said: A people who values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." 0
points
1
point
Only a Nazi buttplug would call a Jew a Nazi. Firstly, you are clearly not a Jew. Secondly, some of the highest ranking Nazis were Jews. See:- Notably, there were several high-ranking Nazis of Jewish descent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ListofNazisofnon-Germanic_descent The Nazis labelled Werner Goldberg, a Jewish soldier who fought for Germany in WW2, "the ideal German soldier", and splashed his face all over their recruitment posters. Your myths are stupid and they contradict the historical record. 1
point
1
point
OK. So what are you bitching about?? You want the "problem" to stay, get WORSE, as long as everyone is allowed to do whatever damage they want to do to society. Your opinion is your own problem. The extent to which lawmakers share it is my problem. I don’t believe the free exchange of information and opinion is a problem. What I am bitching about is the influence of people with your opinion. People like you are the problem Al. Keep in mind, they are talking about legal content. So tell me, what can I say online that treads on your rights? Nothing. There is nothing about a majority that magically confers correct choices or ideas. Just because all your friends all jump off a cliff, doesn’t make it a good idea. A child knows that. If you want to trust elected officials to decide what information is ok for you, get ready to see a lot of Pro-Trump content and a lot less opposition. The majority is a mob. It can go fuck itself. I don’t believe the free exchange of information and opinion is a problem. What you exchange is not information. You exchange senseless, dishonest, self-contradictory trash with anybody stupid enough to read it. In all my time using this board I have yet to see you counter a point. You just seem to dance around what the other person says without ever actually refuting it. No one Al. You said that leaving it up to individuals is the source of our current problem. That belief is the problem. His beliefs are basic common sense. Your posts are trash written by a sneering narcissist. One cannot even identify your beliefs because you change them to suit whichever argument you happen to be having. I voted to leave, the EU is becoming a federal superstate and the laws are written by an unelected commission. Sure, we elect the EU parliament, but they cannot write laws, they can only vote on the laws created by the unelected commission. In other words when people claim they want to reform the EU they are actually saying "we will hope that the EU reforms itself". This is because we have no power to elect people that can actually propose legislation. Yeah, the Irish border issue is going to be a tough nut to crack. It’s a nightmare scenario trouble is brewing already and I wager is set to escalate I'm surprised the Republic doesn't want to leave the EU too, given the fact that they fought so hard for independence from England. But how would the Republic benifit as a small nation isolated from the E U? But how would the Republic benifit as a small nation isolated from the E U? Couldn't you have asked the same question in the past changing "E.U." for "U.K."? Self-determination and independence are valuable and, in my estimation, the Irish deeply value them (at least in theory). Couldn't you have asked the same question in the past changing "E.U." for "U.K."? No I honestly couldn’t as how could one favorably compare a dominating occupying force ruling one country as similar to being a member of the EU? Self-determination and independence are valuable and, in my estimation, the Irish deeply value them (at least in theory). Yes sure I agree, but we as a country have a tiny population and the whole idea of us following Britain and its implications is a whole debate where the financial implications have to be taken on board and evaluated , I’m trying to figure out how would such a move benefit the country? No I honestly couldn’t as how could one favorably compare a dominating occupying force ruling one country as similar to being a member of the EU? Because in both cases you are not self-governing. I’m trying to figure out how would such a move benefit the country? I think the biggest benefit is being ruled democratically. The E.U. is not democratic because we cannot elect the people who actually propose legislation. They are not accountable to the people. Accountability is the main thing that makes democracy better than other systems of governance. It is the primary reason why our rulers don't abuse the people, or at least why they don't abuse us as much as the rulers of old. Because in both cases you are not self-governing. Off course we are what do you base this statement on? The stated aims of E U membership are ...... To establish European citizenship. This means protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms. To ensure freedom, security and justice. This means co-operation in the field of justice and home affairs. To promote economic and social progress. This involves the single market, the euro, environmental protection and social and regional development. To assert Europe's role in the world. I think the biggest benefit is being ruled democratically. We pick and choose by voting and holding referendums debates etc The E.U. is not democratic because we cannot elect the people who actually propose legislation. That’s something I’m not sure about as I’m sure elected people have proposed legislative changes They are not accountable to the people. Accountability is the main thing that makes democracy better than other systems of governance. The proof of the pudding is in the eating I’ve nothing to complain about regarding the country I live in and it’s application of democratic principles , I pay 1 per cent tax as I’m an artist making me tax exempt mostly , I’ve free medical , entitlement to a state pension, free bus and rail travel and many other perks . It is the primary reason why our rulers don't abuse the people, or at least why they don't abuse us as much as the rulers of old. If this form of democracy is abuse I’m all for it Off course we are what do you base this statement on? The fact that EU member states are beneath ECJ jurisdiction and EU law supercedes national law. We pick and choose by voting and holding referendums debates etc We don't elect the EU commission, who are the ones that propose laws. The EU parliament only votes on these proposals, it cannot propose laws itself. That’s something I’m not sure about as I’m sure elected people have proposed legislative changes Not in the EU, the ones with the power to write laws are solely the commission. The proof of the pudding is in the eating I’ve nothing to complain about regarding the country I live in and it’s application of democratic principles The EU has not yet fully become the federal superstate that it is on the path to becoming. I pay 1 per cent tax as I’m an artist making me tax exempt mostly , I’ve free medical , entitlement to a state pension, free bus and rail travel and many other perks . Those things come from your national and local government. If this form of democracy is abuse I’m all for it You misunderstand my point, you should re-read it. I never said anything about "this...democracy (being) abuse". To illustrate the point let me ask you this; why do you think democratic governments treat their citizens better than dictatorships? It's because they are accountable to the citizens. The EU commission is not accountable to it's citizens. The fact that EU member states are beneath ECJ jurisdiction and EU law supercedes national law. But we are self governing and make mostly our own decisions as a nation We don't elect the EU commission, who are the ones that propose laws. The EU parliament only votes on these proposals, it cannot propose laws itself. During the ordinary legislative procedure, the Council (which are ministers from member state governments) and the European Parliament (elected by citizens) can make amendments and must give their consent for laws to pass. The Commission oversees departments and various agencies that execute or enforce EU law. EU commissioners on the other hand are proposed by national governments and selected by the president of the European Commission. New legislation proposed by the Commission still has to be agreed by the member states and passed by the European Parliament, which is directly elected by EU voters. So it's misleading to say unelected bureaucrats make decisions in the EU. The 28 European commissioners are meant to carry out their responsibilities independently of their national governments. In that sense, they are similar to British civil servants - politically impartial and independent of the government. Not in the EU, the ones with the power to write laws are solely the commission. Proposed by National governments The EU has not yet fully become the federal superstate that it is on the path to becoming. I don’t buy that Those things come from your national and local government. Yes indeed You misunderstand my point, you should re-read it. I never said anything about "this...democracy (being) abuse". To illustrate the point let me ask you this; why do you think democratic governments treat their citizens better than dictatorships? It's because they are accountable to the citizens. The EU commission is not accountable to it's citizens. It is ......Accountability 1. Personal accountability (Article 245 TFEU) Members of the Commission are required: To be completely independent in the performance of their duties, in the general interest of the Union; in particular, they may neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other external body; Not to engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not. Commissioners may be compulsorily retired by the Court of Justice, at the request of the Council or of the Commission itself, if they breach any of the above obligations or have been guilty of serious misconduct (Article 247 TFEU). 2. Collective accountability The Commission is collectively accountable to Parliament under Article 234 TFEU. If Parliament adopts a motion of censure against the Commission, all of its members are required to resign, including the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy as far as his or her duties in the Commission are concerned. But we are self governing and make mostly our own decisions as a nation Mostly being the important word here. the European Parliament (elected by citizens) can make amendments Which means they can slightly modify the legislation proposed by the commission. It would be like if in our democracy if we elected the house of lords but not the house of commons. EU commissioners on the other hand are proposed by national governments and selected by the president of the European Commission. Exactly, not elected by the people. New legislation proposed by the Commission still has to be agreed by the member states and passed by the European Parliament Which means that the European public could vote in MEPs that all agreed on a certain issue, and we would still have to simply hope that the commission agreed too. So it's misleading to say unelected bureaucrats make decisions in the EU. They make the decisions that matter the most. The 28 European commissioners are meant to carry out their responsibilities independently of their national governments. In that sense, they are similar to British civil servants - politically impartial and independent of the government. They are also independent of the citizens, which is my problem. Proposed by National governments Actually, the council merely gives priorities, the commission decides what laws are proposed. I don’t buy that (regarding the EU becoming a federal superstate) The EU has a central bank, it's own currency, levies taxes indirectly, has it's own national anthem, is calling for the creation of an EU army, holds elections and has a parliament, has it's own laws etc. In what way is the EU not on it's way to statehood? 1. Personal accountability This has nothing to do with accountability to the people. To explain, our politicians are accountable to the people because they rely on us for election and reelection. The EU commission is not. If Parliament adopts a motion of censure against the Commission, all of its members are required to resign, including the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy as far as his or her duties in the Commission are concerned. This means at best that the commission has a small amount of accountability to the EU parliament (and not to the people). Moreover, a motion of censure would never pass because it means getting rid of all commissioners and requires a 2/3 majority. Also there are further issues with the "democracy" of the EU, such as the fact that citizens of larger states (such as those in the UK) have less say. This is because British MEPs represent more people than those in smaller states, yet have the same voting power. In fact, citizens of the smallest states (Malta and Luxembourg) have ten times the voting power of those in the largest states. Furthermore, and this is a separate issue in regards to the size of any democracy; one can be better represented in smaller democracies. In other words, one has more of a say in a democracy of 100 than 1000. This is because one makes up a larger percentage of the population. Mostly being the important word here. What decisions can we not make that we should? Which means they can slightly modify the legislation proposed by the commission. It would be like if in our democracy if we elected the house of lords but not the house of commons. Where does it state they can only “slightly modify”? The European Parliament and the Council review proposals by the Commission and propose amendments. If the Council and the Parliament cannot agree upon amendments, a second reading takes place. ... If the two institutions agree on amendments, the proposed legislation can be adopted. Exactly, not elected by the people. But each and everyone is elected going on their record of service in individual countries so what’s the problem? Which means that the European public could vote in MEPs that all agreed on a certain issue, and we would still have to simply hope that the commission agreed too. You seem to have a very negative attitude to absolutely everything regarding the EU They make the decisions that matter the most. From the economist..... Every government has bureaucrats, who are by nature unelected. The EU, with about 33,000 civil servants, is dwarfed by the British government, which employs over 400,000. The complaint might be that not only junior EU officials, but many senior ones are appointed rather than elected; yet this, too, is true of all governments. British papers that disparage the “unelected” Michel Barnier, the EU’s lead Brexit negotiator, would struggle to find a country that has an elected trade representative. As for the 28 commissioners who make up the European Commission, the EU’s cabinet, they are nominated by member countries (each gets one) and approved by the European Parliament, which is directly elected by voters. This is similar to the United States, where cabinet members are nominated by the president and approved by the Senate. The European Council, which is essentially the EU’s chief executive body, comprises the 28 member countries’ leaders, all democratically elected They are also independent of the citizens, which is my problem. Well that’s something you no longer have as a problem then Actually, the council merely gives priorities, the commission decides what laws are proposed During the ordinary legislative procedure, the Council (which are ministers from member state governments) and the European Parliament (elected by citizens) can make amendments and must give their consent for laws to pass. The EU has a central bank, it's own currency, levies taxes indirectly, has it's own national anthem, is calling for the creation of an EU army, holds elections and has a parliament, has it's own laws etc. In what way is the EU not on it's way to statehood? But we as a nation still have out national identity and everything that goes with that including neutrality 1. Personal accountability This has nothing to do with accountability to the people. To explain, our politicians are accountable to the people because they rely on us for election and reelection. The EU commission is not. The European Commission is held democratically accountable by the European Parliament, which has the right to approve and dismiss the entire political leadership of the Commission. The European Commission is also accountable for putting the EU budget into practice. Every year, the Parliament chooses to give (or not) its blessing to the European Commission on the way it has managed the EU budget. This process is called the discharge. The Parliament bases its decision on several reports from the European Court of Auditors and from the European Commission, including the annual management and performance report for the EU budget. This means at best that the commission has a small amount of accountability to the EU parliament (and not to the people). Moreover, a motion of censure would never pass because it means getting rid of all commissioners and requires a 2/3 majority. Also there are further issues with the "democracy" of the EU, such as the fact that citizens of larger states (such as those in the UK) have less say. This is because British MEPs represent more people than those in smaller states, yet have the same voting power. In fact, citizens of the smallest states (Malta and Luxembourg) have ten times the voting power of those in the largest states. Furthermore, and this is a separate issue in regards to the size of any democracy; one can be better represented in smaller democracies. In other words, one has more of a say in a democracy of 100 than 1000. This is because one makes up a larger percentage of the population. Ok I will leave it there as it’s merely opinions now and it’s obviously going nowhere as we are poles apart . What decisions can we not make that we should? You were saying "We...make mostly our own decisions as a nation" which means we don't make them all. How about Article 13 that killed fair dealing exceptions to copyright law. Where does it state they can only “slightly modify”? That is what it means to make an amendment. But each and everyone is elected going on their record of service in individual countries so what’s the problem? What do you mean? The problem is that they aren't elected by the citizens, like any regular democratic office. You seem to have a very negative attitude to absolutely everything regarding the EU This was all regarding one point... democracy and accountability. I like the idea of good trade links, I'm simply not willing to forgo democracy for them. British papers that disparage the “unelected” Michel Barnier, the EU’s lead Brexit negotiator, would struggle to find a country that has an elected trade representative. He doesn't write laws, that is the chief distinction. Once again, the EU commission is equivalent to the house of commons in our system. Well that’s something you no longer have as a problem then (regarding the commission's independence from the citizens) How so? Would you be fine with not electing the house of commons? the European Parliament (elected by citizens) can make amendments and must give their consent for laws to pass. Exactly, so we cannot elect someone to propose legislation, unlike in the UK parliament. We can merely elect the people who amend or approve the legislation (like the house of lords in the UK). But we as a nation still have out national identity and everything that goes with that including neutrality This appears to concede the point that the EU is moving toward statehood. The European Commission is held democratically accountable by the European Parliament, which has the right to approve and dismiss the entire political leadership of the Commission. It won't ever happen, a 2/3 majority is too difficult to attain and once again accountability to other politicians is not accountability to the people. Every year, the Parliament chooses to give (or not) its blessing to the European Commission on the way it has managed the EU budget. This process is called the discharge. This is still aside from my point. The commission are not accountable to the people, which is a fundamental part of democracy. Ok I will leave it there as it’s merely opinions now and it’s obviously going nowhere as we are poles apart . Nothing I said in those 3 paragraphs is opinion, except perhaps the phrasing "would never pass" regarding censure could be changed to "is extremely unlikely to pass". In any case, thank you it's always a pleasure to debate those that disagree respectfully. 1
point
Can you possibly be any more in bed with Big Government? Give me a break! It's amazing the hate you have towards Corporations when they are the ones who give people jobs! I guess you want to go back to a time of peasants with Kings distributing the taxes to whoever pads their pockets. 1
point
0
points
No one listens to a person who attacks them instantly no matter what they say. I attack you because you're a pathological liar and a fascist who has just spent the past four days trying to convince people that the Nazis were left wing. If you don't want to be attacked then stop telling outrageous lies like I attack everybody instantly for no reason. You are a natural born liar who sits on the internet all day quoting Mussolini speeches. Go fuck yourself. If you don't want to be attacked then stop telling outrageous lies like I attack everybody instantly for no reason. The only liar is you a compulsive liar at that , you attack and have attacked everyone on this site and do so daily , you’re truly a pathetic creature who meets ever argument with the same tired retort as in “you’re stupid “ all because you cannot debate. The truly hilarious thing is you spend your days accusing everyone of being a Jew and using your alt accounts to attack those you think are Jews and yet calling them and everyone else Nazis. You’re clinically insane and beyond help at this stage. |