Unelected Jean-Claude Juncker nominated as next head of EU Commission

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yet to explain what the difference is between people and peoples other than what I can only assume is the view that somehow all people in X country think exactly the same way and cannot possibly to see eye to eye with anyone from Y country

So lets take the example of Saudi Arabia and Britain in a hypothetical political union run under a democracy.

Do you think the people who currently live in Britain share similar views/cultural outlooks on subjects (in that there are differences but the differences can be managed within a democracy as there exists consensus between opposing sides) such as women's rights, gay rights, alcohol, drugs, religion and so on and so forth as say those people currently living in Saudi Arabia?

I mean, do I really have to explain the bleeding obvious? Do you think the two nationalities/cultures would be compatible in a democracy at all or would it be perhaps absurd to suggest so in that the cultural differences between the two mean that both would regard the other as foreign and are simply incompatible in any way, shape or form to live together under the same political/legal system?

Do Saudis adhere to say Burkean conservatism, Locke and Classical liberal concepts or Fabian socialism? Or not?

[Chippiewill]

Probably a good thing we're not in a union with Saudi Arabia then.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's 2020 and the United Kingdom of Britain and Saudi Arabia is holding its first election.

Party A is a socially liberal party by western standards, the party advocates gay marriage, the Church of England as the national church, the continuence of the House of Windsor on the shared throne, lax divorce laws (by Islamic standards), jury duty and opposes Sharia Law. The name of this party is the Conservative Party.

Party B is a very socially liberal party, the party strongly advocates gay marriage, the Church of England as the national church albeit with reservations, the continuence of the House of Windsor on the shared throne subject to a referendum, more lax divorce laws (by Islamic standards), jury duty (in most cases) and opposes Sharia Law unless only applied in Islamic-majority areas. The name of this party is the Labour Party.

Party C is an extreme socially conservative party by western standards, wishes to outlaw homosexuality, wishes to establish Islam as the national religion and church, supports a dual monarchy with the House of Saud and Windsor on the throne, wishes to outlaw divorce and wants to introduce Sharia Law nationwide. This party is called the Islamic Left Coalition.

Party D is an extreme ba'athist party which wishes to outlaw homosexuality and make it punishable by death, wishes to establish Islam as the national religion and church, supports an Islamic republic, wishes to outlaw divorce entirely and wants to introduce Sharia Law nationwide for ALL UK citizens. This party is called the Ba'ath Party.



...now, the election. What would be likely to happen? Due the Saudi part of the population being very socially conservative and Islamic, as well as lacking the British class divide, as well as historical roots in our democracy (such as Catholic support for the left, with Church of England usually siding with the right) the Saudi population of 25m decides to unite and rally behind the Ba'ath Party for fear of being outvoted by the British part of the country which totals 70m. Although not all Saudis agree with the Ba'ath Party, they agree with the policies of the Ba'ath Party much more than the Labour or Conservative parties.

On the other hand you then have the British part of the nation, who decide to rally behind the Labour Party for fear of an Islamic/culturally alien party such as the Ba'ath Party from winning due to a split vote. Although not all Britons agree with the Labour Party, subjects rally behind the Labour Party in order to prevent the bloc vote of the other side of the nation (with whom they have an entirely different history and feel no shared identity or history with) from winning the election.

Labour wins the election by 35m votes to the 20m votes of the Ba'ath Party. And this process happens time and time again on votes in parliament and in elections. Very soon, the system starts breaking down as it pits one distinct group against another with which there is virtually no concensus on issues due to the vast cultural divide between the two groups..... and thus you have the increasing rise of sectarian parties among the Saudi population (who resent being in a permanent voting minority) and independence parties forming for the British population who wish to end the political union between the two nations due to the trouble it causes.

Now that's a scenario, using rather extreme examples of two nation albeit, how history, culture and peoples can break a 'democracy'.

Probably a good thing we're not in a union with Saudi Arabia then.

But that's the point - we're in an increasing political union with other countries, it is called the EU.

Simply throwing groups of distinct peoples together and giving them a vote each and saying "get on with it" just doesn't cut the mustard. See Iraq.

[Kardan]

It's 2020 and the United Kingdom of Britain and Saudi Arabia is holding its first election.

Party A is a socially liberal party by western standards, the party advocates gay marriage, the Church of England as the national church, the continuence of the House of Windsor on the shared throne, lax divorce laws (by Islamic standards), jury duty and opposes Sharia Law. The name of this party is the Conservative Party.

Party B is a very socially liberal party, the party strongly advocates gay marriage, the Church of England as the national church albeit with reservations, the continuence of the House of Windsor on the shared throne subject to a referendum, more lax divorce laws (by Islamic standards), jury duty (in most cases) and opposes Sharia Law unless only applied in Islamic-majority areas. The name of this party is the Labour Party.

Party C is an extreme socially conservative party by western standards, wishes to outlaw homosexuality, wishes to establish Islam as the national religion and church, supports a dual monarchy with the House of Saud and Windsor on the throne, wishes to outlaw divorce and wants to introduce Sharia Law nationwide. This party is called the Islamic Left Coalition.

Party D is an extreme ba'athist party which wishes to outlaw homosexuality and make it punishable by death, wishes to establish Islam as the national religion and church, supports an Islamic republic, wishes to outlaw divorce entirely and wants to introduce Sharia Law nationwide for ALL UK citizens. This party is called the Ba'ath Party.



...now, the election. What would be likely to happen? Due the Saudi part of the population being very socially conservative and Islamic, as well as lacking the British class divide, as well as historical roots in our democracy (such as Catholic support for the left, with Church of England usually siding with the right) the Saudi population of 25m decides to unite and rally behind the Ba'ath Party for fear of being outvoted by the British part of the country which totals 70m. Although not all Saudis agree with the Ba'ath Party, they agree with the policies of the Ba'ath Party much more than the Labour or Conservative parties.

On the other hand you then have the British part of the nation, who decide to rally behind the Labour Party for fear of an Islamic/culturally alien party such as the Ba'ath Party from winning due to a split vote. Although not all Britons agree with the Labour Party, subjects rally behind the Labour Party in order to prevent the bloc vote of the other side of the nation (with whom they have an entirely different history and feel no shared identity or history with) from winning the election.

Labour wins the election by 35m votes to the 20m votes of the Ba'ath Party. And this process happens time and time again on votes in parliament and in elections. Very soon, the system starts breaking down as it pits one distinct group against another with which there is virtually no concensus on issues due to the vast cultural divide between the two groups..... and thus you have the increasing rise of sectarian parties among the Saudi population (who resent being in a permanent voting minority) and independence parties forming for the British population who wish to end the political union between the two nations due to the trouble it causes.

Now that's a scenario, using rather extreme examples of two nation albeit, how history, culture and peoples can break a 'democracy'.



But that's the point - we're in an increasing political union with other countries, it is called the EU.

Simply throwing groups of distinct peoples together and giving them a vote each and saying "get on with it" just doesn't cut the mustard. See Iraq.

Hahahaha, did you really just use an example where the UK has 25 million Muslims all from Saudi Arabia and every single one would vote for extreme laws? My god.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My darling, your just (trying) to argue on hypothetical numbers now. If it makes you happy, revise the number of Saudi voters to 15m idc.

Hahahaha, did you really just use an example where the UK has 25 million Muslims all from Saudi Arabia and every single one would vote for extreme laws? My god.

But you've (thank god, at last) at least got the gist of my point - you say those parties are 'extreme', but in cultures like Saudi Arabia: they're not. You are judging their politics by western politics, specifically British politics.. which proves the incompatability and which proves my point. Both you are I for example disagree on gay marriage, but that's at least within the context of homosexuality being legal. You argue with a Saudi on the topic of gay rights, it's a completely different argument because the context and gulf between your view and theirs is so wide that they don't even meet.

Or do you dispute what I am saying and contend that a British-Saudi political union (with a democracy) would work? Speak up if so.

[The Don]

My 'darling', there's a huge difference between the relationships of the UK and countries in the EU, and the UK and Saudi Arabia.

[-:Undertaker:-]

My 'darling', there's a huge difference between the relationships of the UK and countries in the EU, and the UK and Saudi Arabia.

Did I not say I was using an extreme example to get across my point?

But even so with European nations, there's still huge differences in feeling. Look at Belgium, Spain (Catalonia, Basque) and even the UK (Scotland).

[Chippiewill]

You can't use extreme examples to prove your point in situation, we're already in a union with Scotland, wales , NI and England which CLEARLY you regard as a single people. So its apparent the issue here is the degree of cultural difference rather than the existence of a difference. Using an extreme example here does your argument no service.

[Kardan]

So not only are we going to get 28 million Romanians and Bulgarians, we're also getting another 21 million Muslims from Saudi Arabia.

[Chippiewill]

Don't forget the contents of China. We'll all be communists soon with the development of the nanny state