Is england becoming a fascist state?

Post Reply New Topic

Sounds like its headed in that direction........ BOY am I glad the North American colonies broke away just in the nick of time!

Well, I voted 'yes', but saying it's a fascist state is going a bit too far. I live in England, and I hear about these things, but none have ever affected me. I wouldn't move to another country unless they do something really bad (I am thinking of moving to Europe, though, because I like learning about and experiencing different cultures. But that's unrelated).

All the information that the government keeps is probably the most worrying thing, but it has good intentions, and there's very little chance that we'd be invaded or ruled by a dictator.

Nonetheless, I definitely don't like the direction England is moving in.

It is also that way in the Colonies.

ruveyn

The law does have that sick quality of influencing people to simply become better at being bad, instead of just better, which is (supposedly) the intent.

It is funny how the definition of fascism has broadened from the original term. Fascism is more then just control, all governments do that to some degree. If you are talking about Mussolini fascism then it is also about putting the corporation first and corporate protectionism. Which ironically is precisely what a happened with 'capitalism' highlighted by the recent ecconomic burst.

Heh, ive actually considered moving to Canada due to Britain's current direction.

The current British constitution is by continental standards a dictatorship of parliament. In all other EU-countries (and the most European countries outside the EU) a law can be subject to a legal proceeding to check that the law is within the frame work of the constitution. In Britain no judge could declare an Act of Parliament "illegal". He may could ignore an Act of Parliament in certain very special circumstances, but the Act will still have its stand.

There are only two courts which can overwrite an Act of Parliament: The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the Court of Justice of the EC in Luxembourg.

Whatever federal or national body has final say becomes a dictatorship of that body. In the USA the Supreme Court has that power and, in contrast to England, the members are appointed for life, not elected so that makes it even more intractable. G.W.Bush's first election was solidified by that court and there was no contest even though the popular vote went against him.

Than the European Union is the area which most far away from being a dictatorship: The power is finely tuned and counterweighted between member states, the commission, parliament and the the two instances of the court in Luxembourg that at the end no one has really a "final say".

Read the Constitution. The President is NOT elected by popular vote. He is elected by the Electoral College. Several presidents have had less than a majority of the popular vote. Bill Clinton did not have a majority in either of his terms. Abraham Lincoln did not have a majority in his first term.

ruveyn

To consider the first election of G.W.Bush in the same category as a revolt of the members of the Electoral College is to wildly misapprise the situation. The crucial vote in Florida had a very large number of probable Democratic voters disqualified for very dubious reasons and the decision of the Supreme Court to cut short the recount was in no way related to the Electoral College situation.

Could you explain how the European Union elects it's officials in more detail? It's a common claim by the generally anti-European press over here (I live in England) that it the power largely rests with unelected officials. I'm too lazy to actually read the official documents and you seem to know what you're talking about, plus I get the impression you like talking about it.

And yes England is turning into a police state, I'm planning on moving to either Iceland or Norway. It might seem a petty concern compared to issues about identity cards and the like but my friend was arrested recently for having his feet up on another chair on a train. It was kinda his fault too as he argued with the policemen about it and refused to move but still, he get's arrested for putting his feet up and the police who shoot an innocent man in the head get of free. Don't seem right really.

They are elected not one ones, twice: By the Council of Ministers (the governments of the member states) and the EU-Parliament. Without a consent of both a new EU-Commission can't be established:

Art. 214 - EC-Treaty:

"2. The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government and acting by a qualified majority, shall nominate the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament.

The Council, acting by a qualified majority and by common accord with the nominee for President, shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State."

The President and the other Members of the Commission thus nominated shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament. After approval by the European Parliament, the President and the other Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Council, acting by a qualified majority."

The Term "qualified majority" is originally specified in Art. 205 of the EC-Treaty, but amended most recently with the accession of Bulgaria and other 2005. In the current voting system you need 255 votes from 345 votes (votes are weighted according to size with a strong bias to smaller member states) which also represent 2/3 of the member states and at least represent 62% of the population.

The election process of the EU-Commission is complex, because the Council of Minister and the EU-Parliament must agree, but to speak of "unelected" commissioners is plainly wrong.



The problem with the legal basis of the EU is that the EU is still acting with different treaties, interlaced amended with each new succession, result of shear endless negotiations and of a complexity that it hard to explain to anyone.



Scandinavian countries are here no better - the access and control the state has to each single citizen is much stronger than in the UK. The same is to say with Germany, with the exception that the Federal Government has no real say, but the governments of the 17 states do the same in cooperation.

england is a hobbit state, and anyone comparing it to a fascist state (see franco spain, nazi germany, zimbabwe, turkmenistan, north korea, pinochet's chile) are crybabies and need to shut up and suck on a pacifier

OMG u havent seen V for Vendetta!! !!

yes i did, i read "1984" too.

i even hear my fellow countrymen accuse norway of being a fascist state. MY GOD how i wish kicking people to pulp was legal when i hear crap like that.....

they should all go to north korea, and just stay there. not to learn a lesson, but to leave me allone from such BS.