Joined: 09 Feb 2007
|Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:45 pm Post subject: blah
|[ I'M SORRY ABOUT THIS : THINGS ARE SOMETIMES LEFT UNFINISHED BECAUSE I HURRY ALONG WITH THE NEXT IDEA - OR GET STUCK ... ' BLAH ' WAS TO REMIND ME ]
An hour or so to spare so I thought that I would just overthrow the Peace of Westphalia, ripping up the foundations of Western de-civilisation and ...
... well I guess that means that in fact I am going to be writing a theoretical piece ... my own views upon sovereignty are that it does not exist : you can not legislate to make pigs fly nor angels dance on the head of a pin - the use of the idea of " sovereignty " belongs in the medieval world of feudal states ... like The United Kingdom ... or The United States of America ... or ... Wales ? ... no : we are still stuck in the The Dark Ages ...
Have a read of this first - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty - let me try to pick some bits out ...
... A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty when it is not restricted by a constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas of law or policy are reserved as being outside its control ... [ I.E. TYRANNY - AND THE UK'S CONFLICT WITH REPUBLICANS IS BECAUSE OUR CONCEPTIONS ARE TYPICALLY AKIN TO THAT OF " NATURAL LAW " WHICH UNDERPINS ... ] ... International law; policies and actions of neighboring states; cooperation and respect of the populace; means of enforcement; and resources to enact policy are factors that might limit sovereignty ... [ ... AND INTERFERENCE IN FAMILY LIFE AND THE STATE MISEDUCATION OF OUR CHILDREN REALLY OFFENDS A LOT OF REPUBLICANS IN WALES WHO THUS TRY TO KEEP THEIR CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOL ... ] ... For example, parents are not guaranteed the right to decide some [ SOME - !!!! ] matters in the upbringing of their children independent of societal regulation, and municipalities do not have unlimited jurisdiction in local matters, thus neither parents nor municipalities have absolute sovereignty ...
[ THIS IS A KEY MATTER OF CONFLICT BETWEEN REPUBLICANS IN WALES AND THE NON_POLITICAL SYSTEM CALLED THE UNITED KINGDOM ]
A key element of sovereignty in a legalistic sense is that of exclusivity of jurisdiction. Specifically, the degree to which decisions made by a sovereign entity might be contradicted by another authority. Along these lines, the German sociologist Max Weber proposed that sovereignty is a community's monopoly on the legitimate use of force ; and thus any group claiming the same right must either be brought under the yoke of the sovereign, proven illegitimate, or otherwise contested and defeated for sovereignty to be genuine. [ ... AND THAT IS HOW THE UNITED KINGDOM OPERATES ... ] International law, competing branches of government, and authorities reserved for subordinate entities (such as federated states or republics) represent legal infringements on exclusivity. Social institutions such as religious bodies, corporations, and competing political parties might represent de facto infringements on exclusivity.
[ THIS IS PART OF WHAT LIES AT THE HEART OF THE ARGUMENT OVER THE WELSH COURT - THAT THE COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION IN Y SENEDD IS MAKING LAWS WITHOUT HAVING ESTABLISHED A JURISDICTION - AND IS BEING OVERULED BY LONDON'S COURTS - AND ANYWAY EVEN THE SUPPOSEDLY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM IS POWERLESS AGAINST THE PRIME MINISTER, AS IS THE HOUSE OF COMMONS : THE UNITED KINGDOM IS NOT A DEMOCRACY BUT AN ARISTOCRACY - IT IS THEIR ECONOMIC INTERESTS WHICH DETERMINE EVERYTHING, INCLUDING WHO IS TO BE ELECTED TO SERVE THEM AS THEIR APPOINTED TYRANT.]
De jure, or legal, sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised right to exercise control over a territory. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty. When control is practiced predominately by military or police force it is considered coercive sovereignty.
... State sovereignty is sometimes viewed synonymously with independence, however, sovereignty can be transferred as a legal right whereas independence cannot ...
Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a government exercise authority? Claims of legitimacy might refer to the divine right of kings or to a social contract (i.e. popular sovereignty). ... With Sovereignty meaning holding supreme, independent authority over a region or state, Internal Sovereignty refers to the internal affairs of the state and the location of supreme power within it. A state that has internal sovereignty is one with a government that has been elected by the people and has the popular legitimacy. Internal sovereignty examines the internal affairs of a state and how it operates. It is important to have strong internal sovereignty in relation to keeping order and peace. When you have weak internal sovereignty organization such as rebel groups will undermine the authority and disrupt the peace. The presence of a strong authority allows you to keep agreement and enforce sanctions for the violation of laws. The ability for leadership to prevent these violations is a key variable in determining internal sovereignty ...
... This argument between who should hold the authority within a sovereign state is called the traditional doctrine of public sovereignty. This discussion is between an internal sovereign or an authority of public sovereignty. An internal sovereign is a political body that possesses ultimate, final and independent authority; one whose decisions are binding upon all citizens, groups and institutions in society. Early thinkers believe sovereignty should be vested in the hands of a single person, a monarch. They believed the overriding merit of vesting sovereignty in a single individual was that sovereignty would therefore be indivisible; it would be expressed in a single voice that could claim final authority. An example of an internal sovereign or monarch is Louis XIV of France during the seventeenth century; Louis XIV claimed that he was the state. Jean-Jacques Rousseau rejected monarchical rule in favor of the other type of authority within a sovereign state, public sovereignty. Public Sovereignty is the belief that ultimate authority is vested in the people themselves, expressed in the idea of the general will. This means that the power is elected and supported by its members, the authority has a central goal of the good of the people in mind. The idea of public sovereignty has often been the basis for modern democratic theory ... [ ... AND A NUMBER OF MY READERS KNOW THAT I AM FED UP WITH THE ABUSES WHICH ARE RESULTING FROM DEMOCRACY ... BUT I AM NOT ABOUT TO OPT FOR MONARCHY ! ] ...
... Within the modern governmental system, internal sovereignty is usually found in states that have public sovereignty and rarely found within a state controlled by an internal sovereign. A form of government that is a little different from both is the UK parliament system. From 1790 to 1859 it was argued that sovereignty in the UK was vested neither in the Crown nor in the people but in the "Monarch in Parliament". This is the origin of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and is usually seen as the fundamental principle of the British constitution. With these principles of parliamentary sovereignty majority control can gain access to unlimited constitutional authority, creating what has been called "elective dictatorship" or "modern autocracy". Public sovereignty in modern governments is a lot more common with examples like the USA, Canada, Australia and India where government is divided into different levels ...
... Following the Thirty Years' War, a European religious conflict that embroiled much of the continent, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 established the notion of territorial sovereignty as a norm of noninterference in the affairs of other nations, so-called Westphalian sovereignty, even though the actual treaty itself reaffirmed the multiple levels of sovereignty of the Holy Roman Empire. This resulted as a natural extension of the older principle of cuius regio, eius religio (Whose realm, his religion), leaving the Roman Catholic Church with little ability to interfere with the internal affairs of many European states. It is a myth, however, that the Treaties of Westphalia created a new European order of equal sovereign states. ... In international law, sovereignty means that a government possesses full control over affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit. Determining whether a specific entity is sovereign is not an exact science, but often a matter of diplomatic dispute. There is usually an expectation that both de jure and de facto sovereignty rest in the same organisation at the place and time of concern. Foreign governments use varied criteria and political considerations when deciding whether or not to recognise the sovereignty of a state over a territory ...
... Just as the office of head of state can be vested jointly in several persons within a state, the sovereign jurisdiction over a single political territory can be shared jointly by two or more consenting powers, notably in the form of a condominium. ... Likewise the member states of international organizations may voluntarily bind themselves by treaty to a supranational organization, such as a continental union. In the case of the European Union members states this is called " pooled sovereignty." ...
In a federal system of government, sovereignty also refers to powers which a constituent state or republic possesses independently of the national government. In a confederation constituent entities retain the right to withdraw from the national body, but in a federation member states or republics do not hold that right.
A community of people who claim the right of self-determination based on a common ethnicity, history and culture might seek to establish sovereignty over a region, thus creating a nation-state. Such nations are sometimes recognised as autonomous areas rather than as fully sovereign, independent states.
[ ... AND A NUMBER OF MY READERS WILL KNOW THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE " NATION STATE " IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE MEDIEVAL FEUDAL STATE DRESSED UP IN MODERN CLOTHES AND THAT THESE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS THAT THEY ARE " DEMOCRATIC " IS DISPROVEN BY EXAMINING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SHARE IN THOSE COUNTRIES' ECONOMIES - THE UNITED KINGDOM CAN BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE AN ARISTOCRACY BOTH IN TERMS OF ITS CONSTITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND IN TERMS OF ITS ECONOMIC INTERESTS WHICH ARE IN THE HANDS OF NOT MERELY A FEW POWERFUL PEOPLE BUT THAT THESE SAME PEOPLE ARE THE ACTUAL DESCENDENTS OF THE MEDIEVAL ARISTOCRACY ... THE FACT THAT POLITICAL POWER MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED AS IS CLAIMED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM IS MOST DRAMATICALLY ILLUSTRATED IN THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHERE DESPITE ITS DEMOCRATIC PRECAUTIONS OF CHECKS AND BALANCES POLITICAL POWER PASSED FIRST INTO THE HANDS OF AN ARISTOCRACY AND THEN THROUGH A SERIES OF WARS OVER MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS HAS PASSED INTO THE HANDS OF A MONARCHY ... HENCE THE USA IS CONSTANTLY ON A WAR FOOTING AND ITS MILITARY ARE CONSTANTLY SEARCHING FOR ENEMIES TO FIGHT IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THEIR CONTINUING SHARE OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING WHICH PASSES THROUGH THEIR HANDS INTO THE HANDS OF THEIR CLIENT ARISTOCRATS WHO IN TURN POUR HUGE AMOUNTS OF IT BACK INTO THE POLITICAL SYSTEM IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE ELECTION OF THOSE DEMOCRATS IN AMERICA WHO WILL GIVE MONEY TO THEIR MONARCHY ... EXACTLY HOW IT USED TO WORK IN THE MEDIEVAL FEUDAL STATES ... ]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY - Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex.
... BASICALLY IT WAS THE BANKRUPTCY OF THOSE MEDIEVAL FEUDAL STATES - LIKE THE USA IN THE 21C - WHICH LED TO THEIR PEOPLE PROTESTING AGAINST THEIR COUNTRIES BEING TAXED AND TRASHED BY THEIR MONARCHIES WHICH LED TO THE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA ... NOT A DEMOCRATIC DESIRE FOR PEACE BUT AN ARISTOCRATIC INDIGNATION AT THEIR LOSS OF PROFITS ... & NOW I HAVE RUN OUT OF TIME.