CapeXit 2

[lexity]

If this is going to be a debate point of interest, maybe let's just go with "The government of the people, by the people, for the people".

Which - if it is to be meaningful in the real world -would entail defining 'the people'.

 

[lexity]

Not a bad approach actually. Maybe google that too..

Same question to you, then....

How is that relevant to the right of every individual to express his/her preference?

 

[Brian_G]

Which - if it is to be meaningful in the real world -would entail defining 'the people'.

"The people" = basically majority rule.

Hopefully with a BoR , but let's face it, that's not a ground rule sadly.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Chicken-****.

No, democracy has a definition. Nobody is interested in playing your stupid games.

 

[lexity]

Anyone can express their preference for anything. That doesn't mean that preference is achievable, correct, moral or legal.

You sound like the guy who defends involuntary marriage, on the grounds that "people should not be free to make mistakes, in life".

#authoritarianism
#control-freakery

 

[lexity]

No, democracy has a definition. Nobody is interested in playing your stupid games.

You're too chicken-**** to demonstrate your own grasp of the concept.

If you are going to hide behind Google, then paste their definition, here, let's see it.

 

[vigras rojara]

You sound like the guy who defends involuntary marriage, on the grounds that "people should not be free to make mistakes, in life".

#authoritarianism
#control-freakery

Erm, that's one of the strangest conclusions you've come to in our discussions so far. And god knows, there have been plenty.

 

[ToxicBunny]

You're too chicken-**** to demonstrate your own grasp of the concept.

Google democracy, there is the grasp of the concept.

Not my problem you don't like democracy when it doesn't go your way.

 

[Brian_G]

Same question to you, then....

How is that relevant to the right of every individual to express his/her preference?

How is it not? But actually, it's just a study in what's worked and what hasn't, and how many times a referendum actually seems to have been potentially key to success.

 

[lexity]

Erm, that's one of the strangest conclusions you've come to in our discussions so far. And god knows, there have been plenty.

Just because its strange to you, doesn't per se demonstrate it is false.

You opted for the utilitarian argument for denying the right of people to choose their own government.

That applies to the person who denies voluntary marriage. It's a utilitarian: "[but the two don't know what's best for them and know nothing about what a lasting marriage takes to sustain]".

This the height of condescension.

Can you not hear yourself, vigras?

 

[Brian_G]

How is that relevant to the right of every individual to express his/her preference?

I do admire your "live and let live" philosophy, but how far do you take it?

For instance, if a village decided they want to make murder okay under certain circumstances, do you allow it to go on without interference? Specifically, since that could end up a threat to you, does that then change the consideration?

 

[Grant]

@Grant (in particular) - you're mostly right re a referendum, but it's not a simple situation


Question:


Earlier you stated; "Under the South African system: A referendum must be called by the President or a provincial premier..." - some on the forum are claiming that's false regarding the premiers' powers (as mentioned by some politician somewhere), others are saying it is true but that it has no teeth. So need a deeper, more accurate response, and not too long.


Response:


The confusion comes from a technical constitutional nuance.

1. What the Constitution actually says​

The Constitution of South Africa does give premiers a theoretical power.

Section 127(2)(f) states that a provincial premier may:


So the premier of the Western Cape — currently Alan Winde — does have a constitutional provision mentioning referendums.

2. Why critics say it has “no teeth”​

The key phrase is “in accordance with national legislation.”

• There is no national law that sets out how a provincial referendum must work.
• Because that enabling legislation does not exist, a premier cannot practically implement the power.

So legally speaking:

• The Constitution mentions the power
• But Parliament has never created the mechanism

3. Where the President fits in​

The existing law that actually enables referendums is the Referendums Act 108 of 1983.

That act gives the authority to call a referendum only to the President, currently Cyril Ramaphosa.

4. Bottom line​

Both sides of the forum debate are partly correct:

• True: The Constitution mentions a premier calling a provincial referendum.
• Also true: Without national legislation enabling it, the power cannot realistically be exercised.

So in practice today, only the President can legally call a binding referendum in South Africa.

STOP USING AI BOTS
its tiresome, and they provide little but opinion - both unchecked and unchallenged !!

 

[lexity]

Not my problem you don't like democracy when it doesn't go your way.

Who does?

 

[Brian_G]

STOP USING AI BOTS
its tiresome, and they provide little but opinion - both unchecked and unchallenged !!

Nonsense. They're both useful, and not. In this case clearly well researched, it certainly didn't thumb suck that answer.

I try to only use them to derive difficult to determine facts.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Who does?

Normal people.

Do I like the outcome in SA? No. Do I accept it? Yes.

 

[vigras rojara]

Just because its strange to you, doesn't per se demonstrate it is false.

You opted for the utilitarian argument for denying the right of people to choose their own government.

That applies to the person who denies voluntary marriage. It's a utilitarian: "[but the two don't know what's best for them and know nothing about what a lasting marriage takes to sustain]".

This the height of condescension.

Can you not hear yourself, vigras?

It's the secessionists who wish to inflict their desires on others, not the other way around.

In the real world, getting more people to support the cause improves your chances of success, no matter how you believe the world should actually work.

 

[lexity]

STOP USING AI BOTS
its tiresome, and they provide little but opinion - both unchecked and unchallenged !!

Imo, AI - or Google for that matter - should not be used as substitute for your own interpretation and understanding of how the world works.

I still get response which lack important sources. For example I asked perplexity a question about a week ago about polling ion CI, and it had no reference to the polling data from the Victory polls going back 5 or 6 years.

When provided a link it updated its results and they changed quite a bit.

 

[lexity]

Nonsense. They're both useful, and not. In this case clearly well researched, it certainly didn't thumb suck that answer.

I try to only use them to derive difficult to determine facts.

They're good as conversation starters between real human beings(*)

* not those who's objective it is to run interference on the topic.

One still has to verify everything it says.

 

[Brian_G]

Normal people.

Do I like the outcome in SA? No. Do I accept it? Yes.

If you had've lived in Nazi Germany, would you have accepted that?

 

[Brian_G]

Lex - my earlier question re accepting a partial murder-ok type village - it's important, but can't go on until I get some response from you.