CapeXit 2

Poll is for all in South Africa -

  • Do you believe W/Cape secession from the Republic is feasible ?

    Votes: 28 34.1%

  • Would you support a bid for W/Cape to secede from the Republic ?

    Votes: 33 40.2%

  • In the event of secession being successful, would you consider migrating to W/Cape ?

    Votes: 23 28.0%

  • In the event of secession being successful, would you consider migrating out of W/Cape ?

    Votes: 3 3.7%

  • Would you support other provinces bids for secession ?

    Votes: 20 24.4%

  • I disagree to all questions

    Votes: 35 42.7%

  • Would you support a "Swiss Canton" style of governance for the Republic ?

    Votes: 24 29.3%
  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
lexity: Referenda are legally binding, in the sense it is illegal to initiate force, in SA, against anyone exercising their right to FoA.

grant: in other words, no - they are not legally binding

lexity: You mean it's legal to initiate force i.e. commit an act of aggression against a fellow citizen.

grant: don't put words in my mouth
Click to expand...
It's either legal or illegal to commit an act of aggression against a fellow citizen.

But if that (edit: the former) is the case it applies to the privileged tier within a 2-tier society. It's not a right to do so for everyone.

For example I can't send you a notice demand you send me some money or else I'll send some uniformed heavies around to deprive you of liberty or property.

This is an act of aggression. But it doesn't apply as aggression to a privileged subset of fellow citizens.

Some can do this, in order to subsidize their life-style, legally.

That's a 2-tier society.

If you reward this criminal behavior, don't be surprised if there is a queue that forms in front of the door that says 'come work for the government' or 'parliamentarians for sale here', or 'come bid for contracts through us... or else starve your business of income'.

This is the Socialist/Communist trajectory SA is on.
 
Last edited:
Brian_G said:
Lex, gonna conclude that your lack of answer to the zillionaire funding question is therefore a big fat no, you would not support them either :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I have posts to reply to that I tend to put some effort into.... don't take it personally.

I'll get round to answering that one, too.

That ok with you? :unsure:
 
lexity said:
I have posts to reply to that I tend to put some effort into.... don't take it personally.

I'll get round to answering that one, too.

That ok with you? :unsure:
Click to expand...

Nice that you're so devoted to the cause, but it's hit and miss getting responses sometimes.

My concern here - that you've maybe missed that there's developing blindsighted support by you (understandably due to other personally influential factors).

What exactly would you be supporting then?
Phil (read as the whole CIM) is not on track for any kind of success, as the seriousness of a referendum is far closer to the (failed) election type of questioning already experienced, than to the very much more casual polling type of questioning.

Besides taking years to fund, that would all but destroy CIM, so I'm suggesting don't support it - although controversial it's a needed twist to save what's left of CIM.
(Not an opinion, I truly believe this is fact.)
 
What would I vote if a referendum happened anyway, despite probable lack of support for even going that far (and if I was in the WC for it) ?
Then I would still give it my YES
 
lexity said:
To say you need 2 3rds approval, is the primitive's attempt to by-pass the very same right that was required into order to form a political union in the first place.
Click to expand...
No lexy.. It's called the law, and part of democracy and all those wonderful things.

We know that doesn't sit well with you though, you only like democracy when it gives you the answer you want.
 
ToxicBunny said:
No lexy.. It's called the law, and part of democracy and all those wonderful things.

We know that doesn't sit well with you though, you only like democracy when it gives you the answer you want.
Click to expand...
Let's see if another straight forward question/request is too much to ask of you...

Define 'democracy' as you understand it.
 
When do we want a referendum?
When "Phil" has strengthened / regained enough support, and that by first delivering a detailed-enough well researched plan, and by finding methods to strongly expose the truth regarding where WC and SA politics are certainly heading.

And it all needs to happen yesterday
 
@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:

“call a referendum in the province in accordance with national legislation.”
Click to expand...
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.
 
Has anyone yet refuted, after 6 years on this forum, that out of 81 independence referenda, held over the course of the last 50 years, any single one of them involved polling those outside the area being seceded?

We see these same old carping hen-peckers that never seem to do any independent research of their own, coming back again and again to bring up the same old slop...
"thE rEfErEndUm shOULd bE A nAtIOnAL OnE,"

"thE cOnstItUtIOn hAs tO bE chAngEd rEqUIrIng twO 3rds prOvIncIAL sUppOrt",

"tHe Victory pOLLs OnLy sAmpLEd 800 pEOpLE"...
Click to expand...

... and on and on.
 
lexity said:
Let's see if another straight forward question/request is too much to ask of you...

Define 'democracy' as you understand it.
Click to expand...
Why? So you can do some stupid rabbit hole nonsense?

You know what democracy is, if you don't then go Google it.
 
lexity said:
Has anyone yet refuted, after 6 years on this forum, that out of 81 independence referenda, held over the course of the last 50 years, any single one of them involved polling those outside the area being seceded?

We see these same old carping hen-peckers that never seem to do any independent research of their own, coming back again and again to bring up the same old slop...


... and on and on.
Click to expand...

Or we could just ask how many of those 81 referenda resulted in prosperous, successful seceded states. And why those that didn't, failed.
 
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".
 
lexity said:
How is that relevant to the right of every individual to express his/her preference?
Click to expand...

Anyone can express their preference for anything. That doesn't mean that preference is achievable, correct, moral or legal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X