4 ms·
If many people believe that co-governance is undemocratic, what does "following contracts" have to do with anything? Frankly, why should New Zealand be forever
by hatefulmoron 3y ago
If many people believe that co-governance is undemocratic, what does "following contracts" have to do with anything? Frankly, why should New Zealand be forever bound by the treaty? Parliament is supreme, if they didn't want to follow the treaty they don't have to.
- throw0101b 3y ago> Parliament is supreme, if they didn't want to follow the treaty they don't have to. If they don't want to follow a treaty they should rescind it. Until then it is the law of the land and it should be followed. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand
- hatefulmoron 3y ago> If they don't want to follow a treaty they should rescind it. Until then it is the law of the land and it should be followed. Or not, as parliament is free to decide. I think my previous statement on parliamentary supremacy stands for itself. If you have something specific to talk about from that Wikipedia page, it's best that you spell it out for us.
- ben_w 3y agoHow many steps between that and the Māori having a casus belli to engage in open warfare? Stuff like this may have a certain level of "might makes right" (similar question for Hawaii, although there it's obvious who would win in a fight) but not always (Irish independence at close to the peak of the British Empire, the Cod Wars, that the US didn't keep all of Mexico after the war, just Texas, Arizona, California, etc.)
- barry-cotter 3y ago> How many steps between that and the Māori having a casus belli to engage in open warfare? Of course they have a casus belli. They’d lose if there was a war though so there’s that.
- hatefulmoron 3y agoThe Māori people (which is not as easy to distinguish today compared to when the treaty was signed) are free to start a war that they will lose.