Comments by "Geokinkladze" (@Geokinkladze) on "David Starkey Talks" channel.

  1. The only person we can't get rid of is the King. Try telling Starkey we should abolish the monarchy.
    11
  2. After his first appearance on question time i wrote to starkey expressing my admiration. He wrote a very nice response. Back in the days of handwritten letters and postage stamps.
    11
  3. Under our constitution no parliament can bind a future parliament, so such a law could simply be reversed.
    10
  4. The yanks have only been using the title for about 18 years before us. It's not exactly their property.
    7
  5.  @vibebrockdorff2384  'walk from UK to france' When hell freezes over maybe. Anyway why would anyone in their right mind want to do that.
    5
  6.  @christinerussell113  under our constitution all referendums are advisory.
    4
  7.  @integinteg9222  we left mate, get over it.
    4
  8. Because he isn't interested in getting involved in actual politics. Wishing a historian to be a politician is like wishing a football commentator to be your team's manager.
    4
  9.  @sandgrownun66  yeah we aren't in the EU. The ECHR is brought into UK law through the Human rights act (as well as others). What a lot of people don't understand is that the UK has a dualist system whereas a lot of EU nations are monist. Being dualist means that our law has to explicitly incorporate outside legislation via domestic law. The ECHR only applies to the UK through a UK Acts of parliament, whereas in Belgium it would apply immediately. It therefore takes time to incorporate EU law into the UK. The corollary to this is that it also takes time to fully decouple. Parliament needs time to replace the HRA. The thing is that if the ECHR legislation was amended the amendments would likely not apply in UK law. So even if the HRA was left alone, then over time we will diverge. Starkey is hyperbolic. Notice how he says "it is hoped Browns changes won't be reversed". Then he acts as if parliament will be prevented from reversing them. Parliament can make any law it wishes. Nothing changes that.
    3
  10. ​ @seastnanseastnan7765  absolute claptrap. He's talking about England and Cromwell at the beginning of this vid at which point there is no "Britain" just separate, sometimes Warring kingdoms.
    3
  11. British constitution in a nutshell: "Parliament can make any law it wishes, no parliament can bind a future parliament". The parliament is British and makes British laws.
    3
  12. An English man in Scotland is subject to a different legal system. In Wales he sees signs in Welsh and hears the locals speaking foreign language.
    3
  13. Well all the British people had to do to bring an end to the "discontent" was vote the other lot in. But this is the other lot. And things haven't got better.
    3
  14. ​ @Clownshow24 Yes the house of lords (whose role it replaced) was much more democratic.
    3
  15. ​ @robertstorey7476 The public gets what the public wants. If the public wants alternating Tory and labour govts then that's what it gets. The choice isn't forced on them.
    2
  16. ​ @alabaster6117 Very few govts fulfill the will of the electorate. Nobody in Germany for example voted for the "traffic light" (SPD, FDP and Greens) coalition as it wasn't a choice on the ballot.
    2
  17. ​ @markthorne5025 We left the EU mate, get over it.
    2
  18.  @sandgrownun66  It may well decide not to change the HRA, but I suspect it will be inevitable at some point. If parliament decides not to change it and the electorate decides it's a big enough issue then a different parliament will make the change. It's not like a huge proportion of the population is clamouring to leave the ECHR. Yet.
    2
  19. There's a simple counter. If Labour were so evil for making the BOE independent, for creating the supreme court and incorporating the ECHR into UK law then why haven't conservative governments since repealed them when they were in power. Maybe it's because, you know, government not being able to manipulate interest rates, the lords no longer being supreme and you and I being able to take our own government to court are pretty good things.
    2
  20. The ECHR is brought into UK law via acts of parliament (ie the Human Rights Act). Such acts can be amended or removed by parliament. Any new rights will be introduced the same way and can be amended or removed the same way. Starkey is pulling your pants down, which I no doubt he quite enjoys.
    2
  21.  @Metaworldwide  The last thing we need is a president. Most voters are apathetic, they're happy enough with the current system that they don't vote in large enough numbers for parties who propose changes to it.
    2
  22.  @keithparker1346  Paul is still waiting on your answer, oh educated one.
    2
  23. He's wrong tho. Parliament's powers haven't diminished, it chooses to delegate powers to other bodies but it could, if it so wishes, bring them back. Parliament can make any law it wishes, this was true before we joined the EU, while we were in the EU and since we left.
    2
  24. Courts interpreting parliament's laws has been a cornerstone of our democracy.
    2
  25. ​ @leo1961berlin "The market" isn't sexist or racist. As you yourself have pointed out it's goal is increased profit, it's mechanism to achieve this is supply and demand. If a person does the same job as another then they will be able to negotiate the same pay. What we now have is a perverse manipulation where workers in a supermarket warehouse are considered the same as workers on the tills. The workers on the tills are paid less than those who work in the warehouse. As women have decided they tend to prefer working on the tills lawyers have decided they are being discriminated against. The women who work in the warehouse are paid the same as the men who work in the warehouse. A man who works on the tills is paid the same as a woman who works on the tills. This is according to market forces. But lawyers have decided this is a form of sexual discrimination.
    2
  26.  @leo1961berlin  I don't really think u understand what Starky is arguing. We already have parliamentary decisions rubber stamped by the party in power and pushed through by the whips. That's how the government gets through most of it's mandate: manifesto pledges incorporated into a Queens speech, approved by parliament and then effectively rubber stamped over the session. Starkey is railing against the overuse (in his view) of Quangos whereby parliament delegates the decision making power to bodies outside parliament instead of them being under direct control. Because these bodies are outside parliament they are subjected to legal review and so in Starkey's view decisions that would have been taken by parliament in the past are now effectively taken by lawyers. I don't ever envisage parliament taking upon itself the decision as to how much a warehouse worker was worth compared to a retail worker but that's where we are now with these delegated bodies all making work for themselves and filling up our courts.
    2
  27.  @leo1961berlin  "it only protects minorities" just about sums you up. Again getting Starkey wrong. His argument is that minorities are preferred at the expense of the majority. A proportion of job interviews have to be given to this minority or that minority. A sports team containing only white players is wrong, but a team consisting of only black players is fine because black people are superior at sports. Eni Aluko stated this in an interview, a former footballer and practicing lawyer. She'll still be employed by the BBC despite her attitude because she is a minority and must be "protected". Of course Starkey doesn't want preferential treatment just because he is a gay man.
    2
  28.  @Korschtal  The UK has a constitution that is much older than those who are based on codified documents. The problem with a codified constitution should be apparent to anybody who is aware of the problems in the US. The US constitution was written in a time that no longer exists. The UK constitution is very simple, it is also extremely flexible which is why it has lasted so long. What UK law has the government "ignored", by which I assume you mean "broken"?
    2
  29. Yes, Starkey hates parliament delegating legislation but he'd love Henry VIII powers.
    2
  30. We have a written constitution. Have you read Dicey? Or Magna Carta. What we don't need is a document given special consideration because the people who write it aren't special. Parliament can make or unmake any law it wishes and that needs to remain the case. In the US Congress can make any law that is "constitutional", ie it can't make any law it wishes. Instead it has to amend a hundreds year old document, which is almost impossible by design.
    2
  31.  @timothyrday1390  happens a lot to me with the most innocuous comments tbh
    2
  32. Including the laws that took us out of the EU?
    2
  33. ​ @KGS59 It's no surprise really that the democrats are so determined to unravel the protection of god given rights. They are mostly godless.
    1
  34. The longest journey begins with a single step.
    1
  35.  @howarddavies8937  How is proportional representation more democratic?
    1
  36. When did you come to that conclusion? Is it recent or a view you have held for a number of years?
    1
  37. Starmer is in favour of an elected second chamber. For all his other faults, on that issue he is right whereas Starkey wants to keep a system in which Boris Johnson gets one of his many mistresses appointed. And the other thing he is wrong about is that it reduces parliament's position. It is parliament which creates the laws which put these things into place. Parliament can therefore remove these laws if it so wishes.
    1
  38. I'm a big fan of Starkey but the idea that parliament's powers have diminished is for the birds. Mark is correct, parliament is, was and will be sovereign. The supreme court exists through an act of parliament. The EU's laws were brought into the UK via acts of parliament. The ECHR was incorporated into uk law through parliament via the HRA for example. David loves things like Henry Viii powers because they invoke some form of majesty but they are essentially the same as statutory instruments.
    1
  39. ​ @janpetersen7440 "...only a few MPs" more MPs than UKIP got in 2015 yet we'd left the EU by 2016.
    1
  40.  @MicheleLLOYD-bk2mt  "Here's a computer programme we've written that totally, fairly takes everyone's views into account" Getaloadofthisguy
    1
  41.  @alabaster6117  wonderful study. It probably treats the nearly 4m UKIP votes in 2015 as wasted too.
    1
  42.  @alabaster6117 But it's true. If the public really was bothered about getting what they want at elections they'd invest more effort in making selections and parties would respond, but most don't. Ergo the public gets what the public wants. The public wants capital punishment but clearly not enough to pressure parties to support it.
    1
  43.  @billyliar1614  It's stood the test of time because it works.
    1
  44.  @phil00075  The UK, fortunately doesn't have the US system. Ftfy
    1
  45. What voting system do you think works better?
    1
  46. ​ @JohnDavidSullivan There's no need for hope. It's a fact of our constitution.
    1
  47.  @dongmingzhu666  Ahhh yes, democracy is foreign to your lot isn't it.
    1
  48. Brits have been second class citizens in their own country ever since the Normans came.
    1
  49. Now find a clip of Starkey explaining that Parliament can make any law it wishes (which it can) but don't pull him up on his view that an act is ultra vires
    1
  50. Even the longest journey must begin with a single step. Brexit was a step. It was the first step. The next step is to throw out the two party system, vote independent, if none stand then deliberately spoil your ballot.
    1