The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
I think Barty Bobbins is a total ratbag. But I agree, we need to maintain this standard.
Mods might want to consider this issue.
Agreed. I got doxxed a few weeks back - suddenly found myself reading a post from someone using my name and image off Facebook. Mods did a great job removing it quickly...
That’s outrageous. What would motivate anyone to do that.
The notion that an unborn child has the right to life is in no way outlandish. It is a crime to destroy an unborn child in this country and in many other jurisdictions, and not just an offence against the mother.
The Abortion Act 1967 provides a specific exemption from the offence of child destruction, but I think it's quite right that in principle, child destruction should be a criminal offence.
So, I think abortion is very clearly an issue of competing rights (as between child and mother) and a case of where one draws the line. The notion that the unborn child has no rights is without merit.
Agree completely. I posted likewise earlier, but also included the father in that difficult decision on weighing up the rights.
I respect the view that life begins at conception, but strongly disagree with it. In disagreeing you them have to balance the rights of the 3 parties involved. It is an impossible dilemma but I think we pretty much have it right in the UK. Maybe with medical advances reducing the time limit by 2 weeks.
The question is, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? If at birth, doesn't that open the door to abortion much later in the term than current consensus accepts?
Life clearly begins at conception as life is about growing . Abortion though is pragmatic and nothing really to do with when life begins unless its about religious doctrine. Its nature at its brutal worse but nature is occasionally
What disgusts me is rich men who lead decadent mobile lives and would happily procure abortions for their lovers, but force their young women workers to move to Biblical states like Texas or lose their jobs.
Not unique insight, but it's a dreadful thought. The hint of American institutional breakdown and coming Right wing super hegemony we see over the Supreme Court is a reminder a possible Putin strategy is simply to outlast Western sanctions and enthusiasm for Ukraine until Trump comes back to power in 2024.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Funnily enough, I bet you’d argue exactly the opposite way with regard to gun laws and the 2nd Amendment
The notion that an unborn child has the right to life is in no way outlandish. It is a crime to destroy an unborn child in this country and in many other jurisdictions, and not just an offence against the mother.
The Abortion Act 1967 provides a specific exemption from the offence of child destruction, but I think it's quite right that in principle, child destruction should be a criminal offence.
So, I think abortion is very clearly an issue of competing rights (as between child and mother) and a case of where one draws the line. The notion that the unborn child has no rights is without merit.
Agree completely. I posted likewise earlier, but also included the father in that difficult decision on weighing up the rights.
I respect the view that life begins at conception, but strongly disagree with it. In disagreeing you them have to balance the rights of the 3 parties involved. It is an impossible dilemma but I think we pretty much have it right in the UK. Maybe with medical advances reducing the time limit by 2 weeks.
The question is, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? If at birth, doesn't that open the door to abortion much later in the term than current consensus accepts?
The possible answers are not limited to "at conception" or "at birth". Simplistic binaries don't help. Thinking in terms of "life" is misleading. Sperm and egg cells are living. If you donate your kidney to someone else, it's still living. Cows and sheep are alive. Cabbages and bacteria are alive.
What matters is something like personhood. I don't think there is a moment when personhood starts. It develops gradually over time. Many traditions, many decision makers, from Jewish custom through to the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK, have arrived on a decision of a roughly similar point through the pregnancy if you need a hard cut-off.
A, say, 2-week old foetus is obviously not a person. The majority of zygotes (the thing after the moment of conception) spontaneously abort, yet no-one, not even the most "pro-life" zealot, ever really treats them as if those were all people who had died. One can only conclude that their objections to abortion have more to do with their moralising over sex and wanting to control women. If they actually cared about foetal life, they'd be donating money to "save" the "lives" of the much larger number of foetuses that die from spontaneous abortion than from man-made abortion.
Indeed, the fact that the Republicans are obsessed with abortion but opposed to doing anything to support newborns, to improve healthcare for pregnant mothers, to support children growing up in poverty or at risk from health challenges (from pollution to COVID-19) says it all.
This isn't really about defining when life begins. This is barely about religion. It's about controlling women and their reproductive choices.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
The notion that an unborn child has the right to life is in no way outlandish. It is a crime to destroy an unborn child in this country and in many other jurisdictions, and not just an offence against the mother.
The Abortion Act 1967 provides a specific exemption from the offence of child destruction, but I think it's quite right that in principle, child destruction should be a criminal offence.
So, I think abortion is very clearly an issue of competing rights (as between child and mother) and a case of where one draws the line. The notion that the unborn child has no rights is without merit.
Where you draw the line is indeed the issue - hence a debate around things like acceptable reasons (for the termination) and term limits. But what we're looking at here in many states isn't the nuanced drawing of a line, it's an absolutist ban on abortions, effectively sublimating the woman in law to the unborn child she carries. That's outrageous. It pure and simply is. The 'drawing the line' debate around controls is difficult - this isn't.
Plus it's dreadfully authoritarian. Eg my wife and also ex wife are Catholics and would just about under no circumstances have an abortion. As well as finding it traumatic (as I bet most women would) they both think it's wrong. But would they want the law of the land to impose their views about this on to women who feel differently? No way. They wouldn't dream of it. Yet this is exactly what's being proposed.
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
I think Barty Bobbins is a total ratbag. But I agree, we need to maintain this standard.
Mods might want to consider this issue.
A blind man on a galloping camel knows that Thompson is Roberts. I don't agree with posters being able to whitewash their posting history. Though in the case of RT I can understand why he wants to do it. To have hero worshipped Johnson over 99,000 posts would have embarrassed anyone.
I'm not sure I'm understanding here, but surely Barty admitted he was PT when he changed his name here in his postings? Something to do with not using his real name to protect his work interests I think. Not sure it's doxxing if it's common knowledge.
I'm not certain if "doxxing" is technically accurate. Regardless, BR asked that his real name not be used and that should be respected. In particular, using his real name as ammunition is beyond the pale and flat-out trolling.
It’s also basically impolite. I have a trans friend named Julia, she was once Julian. She wants to be called Julia, so I call her Julia
If I went around calling her Julian I would be a pointlessly insolent oaf, I would cause her a deal of distress, and she would no longer be my friend.
Bart wants to be Bart, he/she is Bart. It’s quite simple
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
Abortion is one of those laws (in terms of anti-abortion) that lawmakers make for other people - The moment it affects them they get around it - Same as the stupid covid laws over mask wearing and not mixing with people unless for work as Johnson and Sturgeon broke when they could not be bothered to adhere to it themselves.
Thats why I am suspicious of any law that is billed as the "right thing to do" or "moral " in any way as nobody (when it comes down to it) is that moral they dont bend the laws if need be.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Do the boundary changes in Westminster tilt the field back toward Labour at all? The old boundaries VERamY heavily favour the Tories but there's been a seat reduction from the prior elections. Are the odds correct for the new boundaries ?
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
There was a suggestion yesterday that gay sex and gay marriage might also lose their protection.
I feel differently about gay sex, and possibly marriage too, as I feel (I am not a lawyer) that such are protected either by the constitution or by indeed by common law rights.
Gay marriage was upheld under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
There doesn't seem to be as much desire from SC justices to reinterpret that as Roe v Wade
We will see.
The leaked Alito opinion was scathing about the entire concept of the right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment*, and directly critiqued the decision allowing gay marriage.
Of course while the leak has now been confirmed as genuine, it is not yet the final published decision, and could be amended before it becomes law, since all we know for sure is that it is Alito's opinion, and that a majority of the court support him in striking down Roe.
( *An opinion which contradicts his sworn evidence during his confirmation: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/11/politics/politicsspecial1/alito-at-hearing-pledges-an-open-mind-on-abortion.html ...Much as Judge John G. Roberts Jr. did during his confirmation hearings last year to become chief justice, Judge Alito steered a noncommittal course on abortion. He agreed that the Constitution protected the right to privacy, and endorsed the idea that even the Supreme Court should think long and hard before overturning well-established precedents )
Worth saying that the leak won't be coming from any liberal (they will be trying to soften things). It comes from a hardline conservative who wishes to ensure the Alito opinion isn't watered down - see https://twitter.com/akapczynski/status/1521494553877962754 for the gory details.
I agree on that i.e. it came from a conservative, not liberal. source and for pretty much the reasons outlined there i.e. it locks in the 5 justices as any other decision will now be seen as one being a "traitor"
Not according to the Senate's gaslighter in chief. "Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the supreme court. By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law."
Ok, but that's not my view. I think, working on cui bono, it it far more realistic to think this came from a conservative, not liberal, side.
I'd agree (though it's not impossible someone on the liberal side of the argument leaked it). I was just noting a leading voice in the chorus of what seems like performative outrage from US conservative politicians.
That could be genuine - if you are the GOP in Congress, you are pretty comfortable right now in thinking at least the House and possibly both Houses of Congress will turn to the GOP. Overturning R v W potentially upsets that equation (although there are other considerations).
Republicans rightly concerned with how pro-choice GOP women will react. Esp. in suburban counties & districts where they are key swing voters in potentially tight general-election races this year AND in 2024.
A demographic that's already been pushed & pulled for decades, not entirely by abortion issue but it's been big factor for sure. And was key to Biden's 2020 victory esp. in AZ, PA and GA; and largely responsible (along with 45) for Dems 2-fer pick-up in Jan 2021 in Peach State that flipped the Senate.
On other hand, also played major role in Nov 2021 Republican victory for Virginia governor, and near-win in New Jersey.
Like I said, key swing voters. For whom Roe v Wade is an important consideration, if not an electoral litmus test, for themselves and perhaps even more for their daughters and grand-daughters.
Many of these GOP pro-choice woman have accommodated themselves to voting for pro-life Republicans on many occasions. On basis of balance of factors besides abortion.
Repeal of Roe v Wade may change this calculus, for how many?
For those interested in US public opinion on abortion, here's the Gallup summary: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Note that a very large majority wants at least some restrictions on abortion.
(I would add that, some years ago, Gallup did a study of voting decisions, based on abortion. As I recall, they found then that the issue was important to small minorities (less than 10 percent on each side), but that there were more pro-life voters than pro-choice voters. As you would expect, most in each group were women.)
What do you reckon the correlation is like of people in America who simultaneously hold both views of:
"I ain't taking no damn vaccine, it's my body and I'll do what I like with it" "It's someone else's body and I'm damn sure I'm not going to let them get to do what they want with it"
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Funnily enough, I bet you’d argue exactly the opposite way with regard to gun laws and the 2nd Amendment
I would, yes, and I'd be right to do so. Literal minded consistency, regardless of nuance and context, is the enemy of good judgement.
The GOP don’t care what happens to children once they’re born , and they don’t care that guns kill thousands of children every year . So their pro life stance begins and ends in the womb .
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
I think Barty Bobbins is a total ratbag. But I agree, we need to maintain this standard.
Mods might want to consider this issue.
A blind man on a galloping camel knows that Thompson is Roberts. I don't agree with posters being able to whitewash their posting history. Though in the case of RT I can understand why he wants to do it. To have hero worshipped Johnson over 99,000 posts would have embarrassed anyone.
I'm not sure I'm understanding here, but surely Barty admitted he was PT when he changed his name here in his postings? Something to do with not using his real name to protect his work interests I think. Not sure it's doxxing if it's common knowledge.
I'm not certain if "doxxing" is technically accurate. Regardless, BR asked that his real name not be used and that should be respected. In particular, using his real name as ammunition is beyond the pale and flat-out trolling.
It’s also basically impolite. I have a trans friend named Julia, she was once Julian. She wants to be called Julia, so I call her Julia
If I went around calling her Julian I would be a pointlessly insolent oaf, I would cause her a deal of distress, and she would no longer be my friend.
Bart wants to be Bart, he/she is Bart. It’s quite simple
Personally I quite like the variety of what people call me and get bored if people i encounter call me the same thing in a row. Usually get called first name , first name shortened , Sir , Mate, Duck (live in East Mids) , Love (plump old women do this for some reason) , twat (neighbour) or occasionally knob (neighbour again ) , indian cold callers sometimes do a Mister then first name version. All fine , the only name that gets under my skin is Buddy (please do not call me Buddy ever)
The number of Irish passports being issued in the North has surpassed their UK counterparts for the first time on record, newly obtained figures reveal.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office in London has confirmed 48,555 citizens in Northern Ireland applied for a UK passport in 2020 – at least 356 fewer than those who opted for an Irish passport the same year (48,911).
Official figures on Irish passports in the region are only available for those issued through Northern Ireland Passport Express (NIPX), available through post offices, and do not include citizens who apply for their passports directly from Dublin.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
The notion that an unborn child has the right to life is in no way outlandish. It is a crime to destroy an unborn child in this country and in many other jurisdictions, and not just an offence against the mother.
The Abortion Act 1967 provides a specific exemption from the offence of child destruction, but I think it's quite right that in principle, child destruction should be a criminal offence.
So, I think abortion is very clearly an issue of competing rights (as between child and mother) and a case of where one draws the line. The notion that the unborn child has no rights is without merit.
Agree completely. I posted likewise earlier, but also included the father in that difficult decision on weighing up the rights.
I respect the view that life begins at conception, but strongly disagree with it. In disagreeing you them have to balance the rights of the 3 parties involved. It is an impossible dilemma but I think we pretty much have it right in the UK. Maybe with medical advances reducing the time limit by 2 weeks.
The question is, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? If at birth, doesn't that open the door to abortion much later in the term than current consensus accepts?
Life clearly begins at conception as life is about growing . Abortion though is pragmatic and nothing really to do with when life begins unless its about religious doctrine. Its nature at its brutal worse but nature is occasionally
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Funnily enough, I bet you’d argue exactly the opposite way with regard to gun laws and the 2nd Amendment
I would, yes, and I'd be right to do so. Literal minded consistency, regardless of nuance and context, is the enemy of good judgement.
Whilst I believe we are on the same side as regards the abortion debate and many other liberal positions, your argument fails utterly because of that inconsistency. You cannot argue that States rights are wrong when they are about something you are opposed to such as restrictions on abortion but then argue they are right regarding the 2nd amendment. You have advocated literal minded consistency in one post and then argued against it in the next.
For those interested in US public opinion on abortion, here's the Gallup summary: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Note that a very large majority wants at least some restrictions on abortion.
(I would add that, some years ago, Gallup did a study of voting decisions, based on abortion. As I recall, they found then that the issue was important to small minorities (less than 10 percent on each side), but that there were more pro-life voters than pro-choice voters. As you would expect, most in each group were women.)
When it comes to abortion, large majority of people are ambivalent. Push them and they will choose a side, but they almost instinctively seek middle ground, on a subject where outright proponents & opponents are loath to yield ground.
Also, level of intensity of feeling is a factor, that waxes and wanes one way to the other depending on what's happening.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
Ireland's nonaligned position is in fact to minimise any possibility of threatening the United Kingdom, even in the event of a split in NATO for example, without openly saying so. This makes sense when your neighbour is much stronger and richer than Russia and has historically occupied you for much longer.
The notion that an unborn child has the right to life is in no way outlandish. It is a crime to destroy an unborn child in this country and in many other jurisdictions, and not just an offence against the mother.
The Abortion Act 1967 provides a specific exemption from the offence of child destruction, but I think it's quite right that in principle, child destruction should be a criminal offence.
So, I think abortion is very clearly an issue of competing rights (as between child and mother) and a case of where one draws the line. The notion that the unborn child has no rights is without merit.
Agree completely. I posted likewise earlier, but also included the father in that difficult decision on weighing up the rights.
I respect the view that life begins at conception, but strongly disagree with it. In disagreeing you them have to balance the rights of the 3 parties involved. It is an impossible dilemma but I think we pretty much have it right in the UK. Maybe with medical advances reducing the time limit by 2 weeks.
The question is, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? If at birth, doesn't that open the door to abortion much later in the term than current consensus accepts?
Life clearly begins at conception as life is about growing . Abortion though is pragmatic and nothing really to do with when life begins unless its about religious doctrine. Its nature at its brutal worse but nature is occasionally
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Funnily enough, I bet you’d argue exactly the opposite way with regard to gun laws and the 2nd Amendment
I would, yes, and I'd be right to do so. Literal minded consistency, regardless of nuance and context, is the enemy of good judgement.
The number of Irish passports being issued in the North has surpassed their UK counterparts for the first time on record, newly obtained figures reveal.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office in London has confirmed 48,555 citizens in Northern Ireland applied for a UK passport in 2020 – at least 356 fewer than those who opted for an Irish passport the same year (48,911).
Official figures on Irish passports in the region are only available for those issued through Northern Ireland Passport Express (NIPX), available through post offices, and do not include citizens who apply for their passports directly from Dublin.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
Mr Churchill would have had to fight at least half the Irish, whatever way he approached it. And the nation in NW Europe most experienced in dealing with an occupying power, indeed the same one.
And he would have lost the huge conttribution the Irish made to the UK wartime economy, from navvies building airfields to nurses in hospitals.
In any case, there was a great deal of informal cooperation under the table.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
The number of Irish passports being issued in the North has surpassed their UK counterparts for the first time on record, newly obtained figures reveal.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office in London has confirmed 48,555 citizens in Northern Ireland applied for a UK passport in 2020 – at least 356 fewer than those who opted for an Irish passport the same year (48,911).
Official figures on Irish passports in the region are only available for those issued through Northern Ireland Passport Express (NIPX), available through post offices, and do not include citizens who apply for their passports directly from Dublin.
Because of Brexit, Irish people in the UK have more rights than British people
Except that their homeland is ruled by diktat by unelected bureacrats in Brussels, and if Dublin steps out of fiscal line, their budgets have to go to Berlin first for approval, before they head to the Dail
Not something I would wish for the UK. Thank God the 40 year nightmare is over, for us
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
I think Barty Bobbins is a total ratbag. But I agree, we need to maintain this standard.
Mods might want to consider this issue.
A blind man on a galloping camel knows that Thompson is Roberts. I don't agree with posters being able to whitewash their posting history. Though in the case of RT I can understand why he wants to do it. To have hero worshipped Johnson over 99,000 posts would have embarrassed anyone.
I'm not sure I'm understanding here, but surely Barty admitted he was PT when he changed his name here in his postings? Something to do with not using his real name to protect his work interests I think. Not sure it's doxxing if it's common knowledge.
I'm not certain if "doxxing" is technically accurate. Regardless, BR asked that his real name not be used and that should be respected. In particular, using his real name as ammunition is beyond the pale and flat-out trolling.
It’s also basically impolite. I have a trans friend named Julia, she was once Julian. She wants to be called Julia, so I call her Julia
If I went around calling her Julian I would be a pointlessly insolent oaf, I would cause her a deal of distress, and she would no longer be my friend.
Bart wants to be Bart, he/she is Bart. It’s quite simple
The original B. Roberts was an extremely nasty piece of work (assuming the pirate is meant, as the avatar somewhat implies). So there is a slight bad taste element in using that name, and expecting us to do so.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Viscount Cranborne, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, wrote a letter on 21 February 1945 to the British War Cabinet regarding Irish-British collaboration during 1939–1945:[59]
They agreed to our use of Lough Foyle for naval and air purposes. The ownership of the Lough is disputed, but the Southern Irish authorities are tacitly not pressing their claim in present conditions and are also ignoring any flying by our aircraft over the Donegal shore of the Lough, which is necessary in certain wind conditions to enable flying boats to take off from the Lough.
They have agreed to use by our aircraft based on Lough Erne of a corridor over Southern Irish territory and territorial waters for the purpose of flying out to the Atlantic.
They have arranged for the immediate transmission to the United Kingdom Representative's Office in Dublin of reports of submarine activity received from their coast watching service.
They arranged for the broadening of reports by their Air observation Corps of aircraft sighted over or approaching Southern Irish territory. (This does not include our aircraft using the corridor referred to in (b) above.)
They arranged for the extinction of trade and business lighting in coastal towns where such lighting was alleged to afford a useful landmark for German aircraft.
They have continued to supply us with meteorological reports.
They have agreed to the use by our ships and aircraft of two wireless direction-finding stations at Malin Head.
They have supplied particulars of German crashed aircraft and personnel crashed or washed ashore or arrested on land.
They arranged for staff talks on the question of co-operation against a possible German invasion of Southern Ireland, and close contact has since been maintained between the respective military authorities.
They continue to intern all German fighting personnel reaching Southern Ireland. On the other hand, though after protracted negotiations, Allied service personnel are now allowed to depart freely and full assistance is given in recovering damaged aircraft.
Recently, in connection with the establishment of prisoner of war camps in Northern Ireland, they have agreed to return or at least intern any German prisoners who may escape from Northern Ireland across the border to Southern Ireland.
They have throughout offered no objection to the departure from Southern Ireland of persons wishing to serve in the United Kingdom Forces nor to the journey on leave of such persons to and from Southern Ireland (in plain clothes).
They have continued to exchange information with our security authorities regarding all aliens (including Germans) in Southern Ireland.
They have (within the last few days) agreed to our establishing a radar station in Southern Ireland for use against the latest form of submarine activity.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Don't agree. Precisely because of its imperial history, Ireland was in a very difficult position, with a civil war startting the moment it plumped formally for one side or the other. The Irish also supported the UK a lot more than is often believed.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
You wot?
The internet knows nothing of this, and it doesn't seem a typically papal undertaking
The number of Irish passports being issued in the North has surpassed their UK counterparts for the first time on record, newly obtained figures reveal.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office in London has confirmed 48,555 citizens in Northern Ireland applied for a UK passport in 2020 – at least 356 fewer than those who opted for an Irish passport the same year (48,911).
Official figures on Irish passports in the region are only available for those issued through Northern Ireland Passport Express (NIPX), available through post offices, and do not include citizens who apply for their passports directly from Dublin.
Because of Brexit, Irish people in the UK have more rights than British people
Except that their homeland is ruled by diktat by unelected bureacrats in Brussels, and if Dublin steps out of fiscal line, their budgets have to go to Berlin first for approval, before they head to the Dail
Not something I would wish for the UK. Thank God the 40 year nightmare is over, for us
More anti EU drivel ! Irish people have more rights than Brits and can live and work in 27 EU countries and the UK .
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Britain is showing similar restraint now, given that Ireland is spitefully remaining in the EU, a hostile organisation that the British PM has rightly compared to Hitler.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Viscount Cranborne, the British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, wrote a letter on 21 February 1945 to the British War Cabinet regarding Irish-British collaboration during 1939–1945:[59]
They agreed to our use of Lough Foyle for naval and air purposes. The ownership of the Lough is disputed, but the Southern Irish authorities are tacitly not pressing their claim in present conditions and are also ignoring any flying by our aircraft over the Donegal shore of the Lough, which is necessary in certain wind conditions to enable flying boats to take off from the Lough.
They have agreed to use by our aircraft based on Lough Erne of a corridor over Southern Irish territory and territorial waters for the purpose of flying out to the Atlantic.
They have arranged for the immediate transmission to the United Kingdom Representative's Office in Dublin of reports of submarine activity received from their coast watching service.
They arranged for the broadening of reports by their Air observation Corps of aircraft sighted over or approaching Southern Irish territory. (This does not include our aircraft using the corridor referred to in (b) above.)
They arranged for the extinction of trade and business lighting in coastal towns where such lighting was alleged to afford a useful landmark for German aircraft.
They have continued to supply us with meteorological reports.
They have agreed to the use by our ships and aircraft of two wireless direction-finding stations at Malin Head.
They have supplied particulars of German crashed aircraft and personnel crashed or washed ashore or arrested on land.
They arranged for staff talks on the question of co-operation against a possible German invasion of Southern Ireland, and close contact has since been maintained between the respective military authorities.
They continue to intern all German fighting personnel reaching Southern Ireland. On the other hand, though after protracted negotiations, Allied service personnel are now allowed to depart freely and full assistance is given in recovering damaged aircraft.
Recently, in connection with the establishment of prisoner of war camps in Northern Ireland, they have agreed to return or at least intern any German prisoners who may escape from Northern Ireland across the border to Southern Ireland.
They have throughout offered no objection to the departure from Southern Ireland of persons wishing to serve in the United Kingdom Forces nor to the journey on leave of such persons to and from Southern Ireland (in plain clothes).
They have continued to exchange information with our security authorities regarding all aliens (including Germans) in Southern Ireland.
They have (within the last few days) agreed to our establishing a radar station in Southern Ireland for use against the latest form of submarine activity.
They did not, of course, allow the Royal Navy to use the three Treaty Ports.
But since Britain had given them up in exchange for agreeing Irish neutrality at a time when war was becoming pretty much inevitable, it would be rather unfair to blame them for that.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It is also true. The time for freeloading off NATO has come to an end. Ireland’s position is entirely parasitical. Austria’s isn’t much better
The Austrian government are also continuing to buy gas from Russia. It doesn't look good.
I've found it incredulous that people can honestly believe that, by disarming and defunding the military, getting rid of the bomb, etc... the world is somehow made safer. Otherwise smart people honestly believe this, it is effectively in the Green Party manifesto, and was behind a lot of Corbyn's popularity, and there are big hints of it in the SNP. However, it has always been obvious to me that it isn't true, that the world is safe for us precisely because we have these assets, and that is just the regrettable consequence of thousands of years of human development. Ukraine is evidence of why I think I am right. I would guess there aren't many pacifists in Ukraine.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
You have forgotten the "regime" that oversaw and in part orchestrated the deaths of one in eight Irish people through wilful inaction, and the depopulation of the countryside via the emigration of almost half of the rest to facilitate clearance agriculture by ethnically British landowners, plus it committed atrocities during a recent war to hold onto the country in question. Can you possibly see why the UK did not have the moral high ground?
The number of Irish passports being issued in the North has surpassed their UK counterparts for the first time on record, newly obtained figures reveal.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office in London has confirmed 48,555 citizens in Northern Ireland applied for a UK passport in 2020 – at least 356 fewer than those who opted for an Irish passport the same year (48,911).
Official figures on Irish passports in the region are only available for those issued through Northern Ireland Passport Express (NIPX), available through post offices, and do not include citizens who apply for their passports directly from Dublin.
Because of Brexit, Irish people in the UK have more rights than British people
Except that their homeland is ruled by diktat by unelected bureacrats in Brussels, and if Dublin steps out of fiscal line, their budgets have to go to Berlin first for approval, before they head to the Dail
Not something I would wish for the UK. Thank God the 40 year nightmare is over, for us
More anti EU drivel ! Irish people have more rights than Brits and can live and work in 27 EU countries and the UK .
Personally, I would remove the right of Irish people to live and work in the UK, until and unless Ireland steps up to the plate on Defence spending. Enough of their bollix, now
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
You wot?
The internet knows nothing of this, and it doesn't seem a typically papal undertaking
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
You have forgotten the "regime" that oversaw and in part orchestrated the deaths of one in eight Irish people through wilful inaction, and the depopulation of the countryside via the emigration of almost half of the rest to facilitate clearance agriculture by ethnically British landowners, plus it committed atrocities during a recent war to hold onto the country in question. Can you possibly see why the UK did not have the moral high ground?
Just thinking also of the numbner of Irish soldiers and sailors which served in the armed forces of the Crown, even after independence in 1923.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Don't agree. Precisely because of its imperial history, Ireland was in a very difficult position, with a civil war startting the moment it plumped formally for one side or the other. The Irish also supported the UK a lot more than is often believed.
Talk me through the SNP’s Defence policy
As I understand it you are still fully committed to the swift removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and waters. Because you revile nuclear weapons and regard them as unacceptable. Fair enough. Brave, but fair.
Except that your other big Defence position is to remain firmly in NATO, precisely because it is a nuclear alliance, with nuclear weapons provided by the US, UK, and France, and we all now see how important it is to have nukes, it means you don’t get invaded.
Except that you want to try and make it more difficult for the UK to wield a nuclear deterrent?
So you are simultaneously fiercely against, strongly in favour of, and fiercely against nuclear weapons, all at the same time? And you want Scotland to be not protected, and protected, and not protected, by nukes?
Colour me Unionist, but I am not sure this is entirely coherent, any more
The number of Irish passports being issued in the North has surpassed their UK counterparts for the first time on record, newly obtained figures reveal.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office in London has confirmed 48,555 citizens in Northern Ireland applied for a UK passport in 2020 – at least 356 fewer than those who opted for an Irish passport the same year (48,911).
Official figures on Irish passports in the region are only available for those issued through Northern Ireland Passport Express (NIPX), available through post offices, and do not include citizens who apply for their passports directly from Dublin.
Because of Brexit, Irish people in the UK have more rights than British people
Except that their homeland is ruled by diktat by unelected bureacrats in Brussels, and if Dublin steps out of fiscal line, their budgets have to go to Berlin first for approval, before they head to the Dail
Not something I would wish for the UK. Thank God the 40 year nightmare is over, for us
More anti EU drivel ! Irish people have more rights than Brits and can live and work in 27 EU countries and the UK .
Personally, I would remove the right of Irish people to live and work in the UK, until and unless Ireland steps up to the plate on Defence spending. Enough of their bollix, now
You want Ireland to participate in EU common defence policy? Is this really a sober assessment of the best strategic outcome for the UK in the long term?
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
I think Barty Bobbins is a total ratbag. But I agree, we need to maintain this standard.
Mods might want to consider this issue.
A blind man on a galloping camel knows that Thompson is Roberts. I don't agree with posters being able to whitewash their posting history. Though in the case of RT I can understand why he wants to do it. To have hero worshipped Johnson over 99,000 posts would have embarrassed anyone.
I'm not sure I'm understanding here, but surely Barty admitted he was PT when he changed his name here in his postings? Something to do with not using his real name to protect his work interests I think. Not sure it's doxxing if it's common knowledge.
I'm not certain if "doxxing" is technically accurate. Regardless, BR asked that his real name not be used and that should be respected. In particular, using his real name as ammunition is beyond the pale and flat-out trolling.
It’s also basically impolite. I have a trans friend named Julia, she was once Julian. She wants to be called Julia, so I call her Julia
If I went around calling her Julian I would be a pointlessly insolent oaf, I would cause her a deal of distress, and she would no longer be my friend.
Bart wants to be Bart, he/she is Bart. It’s quite simple
The original B. Roberts was an extremely nasty piece of work (assuming the pirate is meant, as the avatar somewhat implies). So there is a slight bad taste element in using that name, and expecting us to do so.
Of course it's the pirate, it's a tongue in cheek reference but pirates have long been romanticised. Roberts one of them, he's name checked in the Pirates of the Caribbean films as one of the authors of the Pirate Code (which he was in real life an author of) for the oft used "more guidelines than actual rules" quotation.
If you think that romanticisation of pirates is unpleasant that's more than just me you're up against. Though I adopted the pirate flag in response to others repeatedly using pirate as an insult against my beliefs.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Don't agree. Precisely because of its imperial history, Ireland was in a very difficult position, with a civil war startting the moment it plumped formally for one side or the other. The Irish also supported the UK a lot more than is often believed.
Talk me through the SNP’s Defence policy
As I understand it you are still fully committed to the swift removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and waters. Because you revile nuclear weapons and regard them as unacceptable. Fair enough. Brave, but fair.
Except that your other big Defence position is to remain firmly in NATO, precisely because it is a nuclear alliance, with nuclear weapons provided by the US, UK, and France, and we all now see how important it is to have nukes, it means you don’t get invaded.
Except that you want to try and make it more difficult for the UK to wield a nuclear deterrent?
So you are simultaneously fiercely against, strongly in favour of, and fiercely against nuclear weapons, all at the same time? And you want Scotland to be not protected, and protected, and not protected, by nukes?
Colour me Unionist, but I am not sure this is entirely coherent, any more
Quite, it's difficult, especially now.
But it doesn't change the logic of the Irish situation in 1939-45.
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
I think Barty Bobbins is a total ratbag. But I agree, we need to maintain this standard.
Mods might want to consider this issue.
A blind man on a galloping camel knows that Thompson is Roberts. I don't agree with posters being able to whitewash their posting history. Though in the case of RT I can understand why he wants to do it. To have hero worshipped Johnson over 99,000 posts would have embarrassed anyone.
I'm not sure I'm understanding here, but surely Barty admitted he was PT when he changed his name here in his postings? Something to do with not using his real name to protect his work interests I think. Not sure it's doxxing if it's common knowledge.
I'm not certain if "doxxing" is technically accurate. Regardless, BR asked that his real name not be used and that should be respected. In particular, using his real name as ammunition is beyond the pale and flat-out trolling.
It’s also basically impolite. I have a trans friend named Julia, she was once Julian. She wants to be called Julia, so I call her Julia
If I went around calling her Julian I would be a pointlessly insolent oaf, I would cause her a deal of distress, and she would no longer be my friend.
Bart wants to be Bart, he/she is Bart. It’s quite simple
The original B. Roberts was an extremely nasty piece of work (assuming the pirate is meant, as the avatar somewhat implies). So there is a slight bad taste element in using that name, and expecting us to do so.
Of course it's the pirate, it's a tongue in cheek reference but pirates have long been romanticised. Roberts one of them, he's name checked in the Pirates of the Caribbean films as one of the authors of the Pirate Code (which he was in real life an author of) for the oft used "more guidelines than actual rules" quotation.
If you think that romanticisation of pirates is unpleasant that's more than just me you're up against. Though I adopted the pirate flag in response to others repeatedly using pirate as an insult against my beliefs.
A film character? I hadn't seen the film, so that's news to me - the pop culture element.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
You wot?
The internet knows nothing of this, and it doesn't seem a typically papal undertaking
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
I didn't call the Pope a kiddy fiddler. Do you think the Pope is an institution?
I miss read your post. You were actually being even more bigoted. You are a thick, bigoted, right wing twat, who writes uninformed childishly incoherent, politically immature crap that would be deemed too lowbrow for a sixth form debating society. I am going to sign off before I say something really offensive and get myself banned.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Don't agree. Precisely because of its imperial history, Ireland was in a very difficult position, with a civil war startting the moment it plumped formally for one side or the other. The Irish also supported the UK a lot more than is often believed.
Talk me through the SNP’s Defence policy
As I understand it you are still fully committed to the swift removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and waters. Because you revile nuclear weapons and regard them as unacceptable. Fair enough. Brave, but fair.
Except that your other big Defence position is to remain firmly in NATO, precisely because it is a nuclear alliance, with nuclear weapons provided by the US, UK, and France, and we all now see how important it is to have nukes, it means you don’t get invaded.
Except that you want to try and make it more difficult for the UK to wield a nuclear deterrent?
So you are simultaneously fiercely against, strongly in favour of, and fiercely against nuclear weapons, all at the same time? And you want Scotland to be not protected, and protected, and not protected, by nukes?
Colour me Unionist, but I am not sure this is entirely coherent, any more
What do you mean "any more".
The SNP position on nuclear weapons is surely more simple than that. They live in Scotland. Which provides leverage over Westminster in divorce proceedings.
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
I think Barty Bobbins is a total ratbag. But I agree, we need to maintain this standard.
Mods might want to consider this issue.
A blind man on a galloping camel knows that Thompson is Roberts. I don't agree with posters being able to whitewash their posting history. Though in the case of RT I can understand why he wants to do it. To have hero worshipped Johnson over 99,000 posts would have embarrassed anyone.
I'm not sure I'm understanding here, but surely Barty admitted he was PT when he changed his name here in his postings? Something to do with not using his real name to protect his work interests I think. Not sure it's doxxing if it's common knowledge.
I'm not certain if "doxxing" is technically accurate. Regardless, BR asked that his real name not be used and that should be respected. In particular, using his real name as ammunition is beyond the pale and flat-out trolling.
It’s also basically impolite. I have a trans friend named Julia, she was once Julian. She wants to be called Julia, so I call her Julia
If I went around calling her Julian I would be a pointlessly insolent oaf, I would cause her a deal of distress, and she would no longer be my friend.
Bart wants to be Bart, he/she is Bart. It’s quite simple
The original B. Roberts was an extremely nasty piece of work (assuming the pirate is meant, as the avatar somewhat implies). So there is a slight bad taste element in using that name, and expecting us to do so.
Of course it's the pirate, it's a tongue in cheek reference but pirates have long been romanticised. Roberts one of them, he's name checked in the Pirates of the Caribbean films as one of the authors of the Pirate Code (which he was in real life an author of) for the oft used "more guidelines than actual rules" quotation.
If you think that romanticisation of pirates is unpleasant that's more than just me you're up against. Though I adopted the pirate flag in response to others repeatedly using pirate as an insult against my beliefs.
Pirates are romanticised of course because they represent freedom (the sea is no country to tie them down to little laws) .
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Don't agree. Precisely because of its imperial history, Ireland was in a very difficult position, with a civil war startting the moment it plumped formally for one side or the other. The Irish also supported the UK a lot more than is often believed.
Talk me through the SNP’s Defence policy
As I understand it you are still fully committed to the swift removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and waters. Because you revile nuclear weapons and regard them as unacceptable. Fair enough. Brave, but fair.
Except that your other big Defence position is to remain firmly in NATO, precisely because it is a nuclear alliance, with nuclear weapons provided by the US, UK, and France, and we all now see how important it is to have nukes, it means you don’t get invaded.
Except that you want to try and make it more difficult for the UK to wield a nuclear deterrent?
So you are simultaneously fiercely against, strongly in favour of, and fiercely against nuclear weapons, all at the same time? And you want Scotland to be not protected, and protected, and not protected, by nukes?
Colour me Unionist, but I am not sure this is entirely coherent, any more
Quite, it's difficult, especially now.
But it doesn't change the logic of the Irish situation in 1939-45.
At least you admit the problem. Commendable. Most PB Nats airily dismiss the notion there even IS a problem.
I guess Sturgeon has to succour a hardcore of anti-NATO, anti-nuke fundamentalist Nats, as they are her activists, but I see big trouble coming down the line, policywise. It’s as big a difficulty as the currency, debt, bank and pensions, perhaps much bigger
I agree with you on Ireland, they probably did the best they could in WW2, what with their ‘difficult’ history re Britain. The condolences on Hitler’s death were a step too far, however
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Funnily enough, I bet you’d argue exactly the opposite way with regard to gun laws and the 2nd Amendment
I would, yes, and I'd be right to do so. Literal minded consistency, regardless of nuance and context, is the enemy of good judgement.
Whilst I believe we are on the same side as regards the abortion debate and many other liberal positions, your argument fails utterly because of that inconsistency. You cannot argue that States rights are wrong when they are about something you are opposed to such as restrictions on abortion but then argue they are right regarding the 2nd amendment. You have advocated literal minded consistency in one post and then argued against it in the next.
No, I'm gold. It goes like this -
Fundamental human rights should be enshrined. A woman's access to safe and legal abortion is one such. The right to bear arms is not.
People can disagree - both on whether fundamental human rights should be enshrined and if so on what they are - but there's no 'utter fail through inconsistency'. As if!
Just looking at the Roe v. Wade Wikipedia article, this bit caught my eye:
The Court observed that there was still great disagreement over when an unborn fetus becomes a living being.
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 159.
What's curious is the idea that the point at which life begins can be pinpointed precisely.
I might be completely wrong about this, but I suspect most people would accept that there's no right answer to that question. That's why the best thing to do is let the elected representatives - a group conspicuously absent from the Supreme Court ruling's list - decide in a free vote.
The number of Irish passports being issued in the North has surpassed their UK counterparts for the first time on record, newly obtained figures reveal.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office in London has confirmed 48,555 citizens in Northern Ireland applied for a UK passport in 2020 – at least 356 fewer than those who opted for an Irish passport the same year (48,911).
Official figures on Irish passports in the region are only available for those issued through Northern Ireland Passport Express (NIPX), available through post offices, and do not include citizens who apply for their passports directly from Dublin.
Because of Brexit, Irish people in the UK have more rights than British people
Except that their homeland is ruled by diktat by unelected bureacrats in Brussels, and if Dublin steps out of fiscal line, their budgets have to go to Berlin first for approval, before they head to the Dail
Not something I would wish for the UK. Thank God the 40 year nightmare is over, for us
More anti EU drivel ! Irish people have more rights than Brits and can live and work in 27 EU countries and the UK .
Personally, I would remove the right of Irish people to live and work in the UK, until and unless Ireland steps up to the plate on Defence spending. Enough of their bollix, now
You want Ireland to participate in EU common defence policy? Is this really a sober assessment of the best strategic outcome for the UK in the long term?
I cannot see an EU Common Defence ever replacing NATO, at least in the short and medium term - say, 5-20 years (beyond that we’ll be colonised by aliens using GPT67)
The Eastern European and Nordic countries will never rely solely on France/Germany to defend them against Russia, and will always want the USA/UK on board, for reasons which are now bleedin’ obvious. Hence Finland/Sweden joining NATO this month. They’re not waiting for Berlin to grow big hairy cullions
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Funnily enough, I bet you’d argue exactly the opposite way with regard to gun laws and the 2nd Amendment
I would, yes, and I'd be right to do so. Literal minded consistency, regardless of nuance and context, is the enemy of good judgement.
You are so brilliantly boring
Just brilliant, I think you mean. Fat fingers?
But let's not bicker about this abortion banning monstrosity - we clearly agree about it and that's rather precious.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Don't agree. Precisely because of its imperial history, Ireland was in a very difficult position, with a civil war startting the moment it plumped formally for one side or the other. The Irish also supported the UK a lot more than is often believed.
Talk me through the SNP’s Defence policy
As I understand it you are still fully committed to the swift removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and waters. Because you revile nuclear weapons and regard them as unacceptable. Fair enough. Brave, but fair.
Except that your other big Defence position is to remain firmly in NATO, precisely because it is a nuclear alliance, with nuclear weapons provided by the US, UK, and France, and we all now see how important it is to have nukes, it means you don’t get invaded.
Except that you want to try and make it more difficult for the UK to wield a nuclear deterrent?
So you are simultaneously fiercely against, strongly in favour of, and fiercely against nuclear weapons, all at the same time? And you want Scotland to be not protected, and protected, and not protected, by nukes?
Colour me Unionist, but I am not sure this is entirely coherent, any more
Quite, it's difficult, especially now.
But it doesn't change the logic of the Irish situation in 1939-45.
At least you admit the problem. Commendable. Most PB Nats airily dismiss the notion there even IS a problem.
I guess Sturgeon has to succour a hardcore of anti-NATO, anti-nuke fundamentalist Nats, as they are her activists, but I see big trouble coming down the line, policywise. It’s as big a difficulty as the currency, debt, bank and pensions, perhaps much bigger
I agree with you on Ireland, they probably did the best they could in WW2, what with their ‘difficult’ history re Britain. The condolences on Hitler’s death were a step too far, however
Andrew Marr has a peice in last weekend's Newstatesman exploring the question of SNP and the nukes at Faslane.
He says it is going to be a massive issue if there is an indie referendum next year.
Interestingly, he claims he has been told by defence analysts that the MoD looked at the option of moving submarine base to S Wales or English South coast and concluded it would not be viable. There is, it is claimed, no place else for them. The idea has been mooted that we would bunk up with the French.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Funnily enough, I bet you’d argue exactly the opposite way with regard to gun laws and the 2nd Amendment
I would, yes, and I'd be right to do so. Literal minded consistency, regardless of nuance and context, is the enemy of good judgement.
Whilst I believe we are on the same side as regards the abortion debate and many other liberal positions, your argument fails utterly because of that inconsistency. You cannot argue that States rights are wrong when they are about something you are opposed to such as restrictions on abortion but then argue they are right regarding the 2nd amendment. You have advocated literal minded consistency in one post and then argued against it in the next.
No, I'm gold. It goes like this -
Fundamental human rights should be enshrined. A woman's access to safe and legal abortion is one such. The right to bear arms is not.
People can disagree - both on whether fundamental human rights should be enshrined and if so on what they are - but there's no 'utter fail through inconsistency'. As if!
The notion that abortion on demand is a fundamental human right is ridiculous.
Moreso that in a game of Rights Top Trumps it beats the right to life of the unborn child.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Funnily enough, I bet you’d argue exactly the opposite way with regard to gun laws and the 2nd Amendment
I would, yes, and I'd be right to do so. Literal minded consistency, regardless of nuance and context, is the enemy of good judgement.
You are so brilliantly boring
Just brilliant, I think you mean. Fat fingers?
But let's not bicker about this abortion banning monstrosity - we clearly agree about it and that's rather precious.
We agree in practice, but I maybe see nuance where you apparently don’t. The unborn child also has rights as @Sean_F eloquently puts it downthread (better than me). Otherwise we’d have no moral problems with third trimester abortion of perfectly viable babies
When do those rights commence? It’s the devil of a question and I respect the beliefs of those who might put it at conception, even if I disagree
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Don't agree. Precisely because of its imperial history, Ireland was in a very difficult position, with a civil war startting the moment it plumped formally for one side or the other. The Irish also supported the UK a lot more than is often believed.
Talk me through the SNP’s Defence policy
As I understand it you are still fully committed to the swift removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and waters. Because you revile nuclear weapons and regard them as unacceptable. Fair enough. Brave, but fair.
Except that your other big Defence position is to remain firmly in NATO, precisely because it is a nuclear alliance, with nuclear weapons provided by the US, UK, and France, and we all now see how important it is to have nukes, it means you don’t get invaded.
Except that you want to try and make it more difficult for the UK to wield a nuclear deterrent?
So you are simultaneously fiercely against, strongly in favour of, and fiercely against nuclear weapons, all at the same time? And you want Scotland to be not protected, and protected, and not protected, by nukes?
Colour me Unionist, but I am not sure this is entirely coherent, any more
Quite, it's difficult, especially now.
But it doesn't change the logic of the Irish situation in 1939-45.
At least you admit the problem. Commendable. Most PB Nats airily dismiss the notion there even IS a problem.
I guess Sturgeon has to succour a hardcore of anti-NATO, anti-nuke fundamentalist Nats, as they are her activists, but I see big trouble coming down the line, policywise. It’s as big a difficulty as the currency, debt, bank and pensions, perhaps much bigger
I agree with you on Ireland, they probably did the best they could in WW2, what with their ‘difficult’ history re Britain. The condolences on Hitler’s death were a step too far, however
Andrew Marr has a peice in last weekend's Newstatesman exploring the question of SNP and the nukes at Faslane.
He says it is going to be a massive issue if there is an indie referendum next year.
Interestingly, he claims he has been told by defence analysts that the MoD looked at the option of moving submarine base to S Wales or English South coast and concluded it would not be viable. There is, it is claimed, no place else for them. The idea has been mooted that we would bunk up with the French.
There’s not going to be an indyref2 next year, tho. Why on earth would Boris suddenly turn around and say Sure? And Sturgeon won’t call a UDI indyref. I am convinced Starmer will adopt a similar position if he ever attains power
That shunts the next vote (and there will be one) into the late 2020s, probably early 2030s. By that time the “generation” argument will have expired, as well
It's an interesting post, although I would take issue with his description of Trump as "packing" the Supreme Court. He did no such thing (at least not as commonlty understood) - he merely filled vacancies as they arose with members of his tribe.
Indeed. Obama chose Sotomayor who certainly could not be described as a 'compromise' candidate. Given Merrick Garland's performance so far as AG any idea he would have been even-handed if he was on the SC do not hold much weight.
Garland is hated by partisan Dems - he gets more shit on liberal Twitter than most Republicans.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Don't agree. Precisely because of its imperial history, Ireland was in a very difficult position, with a civil war startting the moment it plumped formally for one side or the other. The Irish also supported the UK a lot more than is often believed.
Talk me through the SNP’s Defence policy
As I understand it you are still fully committed to the swift removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and waters. Because you revile nuclear weapons and regard them as unacceptable. Fair enough. Brave, but fair.
Except that your other big Defence position is to remain firmly in NATO, precisely because it is a nuclear alliance, with nuclear weapons provided by the US, UK, and France, and we all now see how important it is to have nukes, it means you don’t get invaded.
Except that you want to try and make it more difficult for the UK to wield a nuclear deterrent?
So you are simultaneously fiercely against, strongly in favour of, and fiercely against nuclear weapons, all at the same time? And you want Scotland to be not protected, and protected, and not protected, by nukes?
Colour me Unionist, but I am not sure this is entirely coherent, any more
Quite, it's difficult, especially now.
But it doesn't change the logic of the Irish situation in 1939-45.
At least you admit the problem. Commendable. Most PB Nats airily dismiss the notion there even IS a problem.
I guess Sturgeon has to succour a hardcore of anti-NATO, anti-nuke fundamentalist Nats, as they are her activists, but I see big trouble coming down the line, policywise. It’s as big a difficulty as the currency, debt, bank and pensions, perhaps much bigger
I agree with you on Ireland, they probably did the best they could in WW2, what with their ‘difficult’ history re Britain. The condolences on Hitler’s death were a step too far, however
Andrew Marr has a peice in last weekend's Newstatesman exploring the question of SNP and the nukes at Faslane.
He says it is going to be a massive issue if there is an indie referendum next year.
Interestingly, he claims he has been told by defence analysts that the MoD looked at the option of moving submarine base to S Wales or English South coast and concluded it would not be viable. There is, it is claimed, no place else for them. The idea has been mooted that we would bunk up with the French.
I have actually predicted on a few occasions that the winds of change are such that this could all be the undoing of the SNP. They can be depicted as Putin's idiots with their stance over trident. It was never a serious issue until now, it has just become one.
I hadn't realised that Johnson had said this about benefit levels this morning:
"I was nonplussed when the PM told Susanna Reid on ITV's Good Morning Britain that he's reluctant to increase universal credit and benefits and protect poorer people from the ravages of inflation because doing so would stoke inflation and force the Bank of England to put up interest rates."
"If the PM wants to impose what used to be known as an incomes policy - a ceiling on rises in incomes - why should it only apply to those on benefits and universal credit, why should it apply only to the poorest people?"
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Don't agree. Precisely because of its imperial history, Ireland was in a very difficult position, with a civil war startting the moment it plumped formally for one side or the other. The Irish also supported the UK a lot more than is often believed.
Talk me through the SNP’s Defence policy
As I understand it you are still fully committed to the swift removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and waters. Because you revile nuclear weapons and regard them as unacceptable. Fair enough. Brave, but fair.
Except that your other big Defence position is to remain firmly in NATO, precisely because it is a nuclear alliance, with nuclear weapons provided by the US, UK, and France, and we all now see how important it is to have nukes, it means you don’t get invaded.
Except that you want to try and make it more difficult for the UK to wield a nuclear deterrent?
So you are simultaneously fiercely against, strongly in favour of, and fiercely against nuclear weapons, all at the same time? And you want Scotland to be not protected, and protected, and not protected, by nukes?
Colour me Unionist, but I am not sure this is entirely coherent, any more
Quite, it's difficult, especially now.
But it doesn't change the logic of the Irish situation in 1939-45.
At least you admit the problem. Commendable. Most PB Nats airily dismiss the notion there even IS a problem.
I guess Sturgeon has to succour a hardcore of anti-NATO, anti-nuke fundamentalist Nats, as they are her activists, but I see big trouble coming down the line, policywise. It’s as big a difficulty as the currency, debt, bank and pensions, perhaps much bigger
I agree with you on Ireland, they probably did the best they could in WW2, what with their ‘difficult’ history re Britain. The condolences on Hitler’s death were a step too far, however
Andrew Marr has a peice in last weekend's Newstatesman exploring the question of SNP and the nukes at Faslane.
He says it is going to be a massive issue if there is an indie referendum next year.
Interestingly, he claims he has been told by defence analysts that the MoD looked at the option of moving submarine base to S Wales or English South coast and concluded it would not be viable. There is, it is claimed, no place else for them. The idea has been mooted that we would bunk up with the French.
I have actually predicted on a few occasions that the winds of change are such that this could all be the undoing of the SNP. They can be depicted as Putin's idiots with their stance over trident. It was never a serious issue until now, it has just become one.
Certainly looks as if it will be a big issue next year unless ukraine war is sorted and Putin gone.
On the other hand I doubt there will be a referendum now. SNP wont risk another loss so soon.
I hadn't realised that Johnson had said this about benefit levels this morning:
"I was nonplussed when the PM told Susanna Reid on ITV's Good Morning Britain that he's reluctant to increase universal credit and benefits and protect poorer people from the ravages of inflation because doing so would stoke inflation and force the Bank of England to put up interest rates."
"If the PM wants to impose what used to be known as an incomes policy - a ceiling on rises in incomes - why should it only apply to those on benefits and universal credit, why should it apply only to the poorest people?"
I hadn't realised that Johnson had said this about benefit levels this morning:
"I was nonplussed when the PM told Susanna Reid on ITV's Good Morning Britain that he's reluctant to increase universal credit and benefits and protect poorer people from the ravages of inflation because doing so would stoke inflation and force the Bank of England to put up interest rates."
"If the PM wants to impose what used to be known as an incomes policy - a ceiling on rises in incomes - why should it only apply to those on benefits and universal credit, why should it apply only to the poorest people?"
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Funnily enough, I bet you’d argue exactly the opposite way with regard to gun laws and the 2nd Amendment
I would, yes, and I'd be right to do so. Literal minded consistency, regardless of nuance and context, is the enemy of good judgement.
You are so brilliantly boring
Just brilliant, I think you mean. Fat fingers?
But let's not bicker about this abortion banning monstrosity - we clearly agree about it and that's rather precious.
We agree in practice, but I maybe see nuance where you apparently don’t. The unborn child also has rights as @Sean_F eloquently puts it downthread (better than me). Otherwise we’d have no moral problems with third trimester abortion of perfectly viable babies
When do those rights commence? It’s the devil of a question and I respect the beliefs of those who might put it at conception, even if I disagree
No, we don't have a "nuance" issue. I support the right to abortion but with controls around reasons and term limits. I don't support an outright ban or anything close to it.
Sean was making the obvious sound deep. He has a talent for that. So do lots of you grinders on here.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Funnily enough, I bet you’d argue exactly the opposite way with regard to gun laws and the 2nd Amendment
I would, yes, and I'd be right to do so. Literal minded consistency, regardless of nuance and context, is the enemy of good judgement.
Whilst I believe we are on the same side as regards the abortion debate and many other liberal positions, your argument fails utterly because of that inconsistency. You cannot argue that States rights are wrong when they are about something you are opposed to such as restrictions on abortion but then argue they are right regarding the 2nd amendment. You have advocated literal minded consistency in one post and then argued against it in the next.
No, I'm gold. It goes like this -
Fundamental human rights should be enshrined. A woman's access to safe and legal abortion is one such. The right to bear arms is not.
People can disagree - both on whether fundamental human rights should be enshrined and if so on what they are - but there's no 'utter fail through inconsistency'. As if!
Nope you have just set an arbitrary definition of a 'fundamental human right' to justify your personal view and excuse your inconsistency. Again. You resort to literal minded consistency in one breath and then attack it in the next.
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Don't agree. Precisely because of its imperial history, Ireland was in a very difficult position, with a civil war startting the moment it plumped formally for one side or the other. The Irish also supported the UK a lot more than is often believed.
Talk me through the SNP’s Defence policy
As I understand it you are still fully committed to the swift removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and waters. Because you revile nuclear weapons and regard them as unacceptable. Fair enough. Brave, but fair.
Except that your other big Defence position is to remain firmly in NATO, precisely because it is a nuclear alliance, with nuclear weapons provided by the US, UK, and France, and we all now see how important it is to have nukes, it means you don’t get invaded.
Except that you want to try and make it more difficult for the UK to wield a nuclear deterrent?
So you are simultaneously fiercely against, strongly in favour of, and fiercely against nuclear weapons, all at the same time? And you want Scotland to be not protected, and protected, and not protected, by nukes?
Colour me Unionist, but I am not sure this is entirely coherent, any more
The SNP are not Scotland, despite what many in the SNP, and many of their opponents down south, say. In the event of a future "Yes" vote, the "No" side still get a say. Of course the losers could take the Second Vote/Revoke line like the losers of the Brexit vote and end up with a shit-show like Brexit. But, if they accepted the result and engaged, you might well find that a majority of Scots would like to keep the nukes and NATO. And, on the currency issue, though the SNP are currently arguing for a Scottish dollar, a lot of both Yes and No voters might be more re-assured if there was a movement to a currency known to be of value i.e. the Euro.
I hadn't realised that Johnson had said this about benefit levels this morning:
"I was nonplussed when the PM told Susanna Reid on ITV's Good Morning Britain that he's reluctant to increase universal credit and benefits and protect poorer people from the ravages of inflation because doing so would stoke inflation and force the Bank of England to put up interest rates."
"If the PM wants to impose what used to be known as an incomes policy - a ceiling on rises in incomes - why should it only apply to those on benefits and universal credit, why should it apply only to the poorest people?"
The Pope criticises "Nato barking at Russia’s gate" and suspects the invasion was "facilitated by the West’s attitude". He also questions whether weapons should be sent to Ukraine.
The less said by that kiddy fiddler institution the better it seems.
I don't agree with what he said, but calling the Pope a "kiddy fiddler" just demonstrates to us all (if we needed further evidence) what an ignorant unpleasant and unthinking right wing bigot you are.
Indeed and when Bartholmew Roberts posted under his name Phillip Thompson he said he would be happy to see the Troubles return to Northern Ireland as a price worth paying for a pure Brexit.
I think Barty Bobbins is a total ratbag. But I agree, we need to maintain this standard.
Mods might want to consider this issue.
A blind man on a galloping camel knows that xxxxx is Roberts. I don't agree with posters being able to whitewash their posting history. Though in the case of RT I can understand why he wants to do it. To have hero worshipped Johnson over 99,000 posts would have embarrassed anyone.
Doxxing is strictly forbidden, and I will ban posters who engage in it.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Funnily enough, I bet you’d argue exactly the opposite way with regard to gun laws and the 2nd Amendment
I would, yes, and I'd be right to do so. Literal minded consistency, regardless of nuance and context, is the enemy of good judgement.
Whilst I believe we are on the same side as regards the abortion debate and many other liberal positions, your argument fails utterly because of that inconsistency. You cannot argue that States rights are wrong when they are about something you are opposed to such as restrictions on abortion but then argue they are right regarding the 2nd amendment. You have advocated literal minded consistency in one post and then argued against it in the next.
No, I'm gold. It goes like this -
Fundamental human rights should be enshrined. A woman's access to safe and legal abortion is one such. The right to bear arms is not.
People can disagree - both on whether fundamental human rights should be enshrined and if so on what they are - but there's no 'utter fail through inconsistency'. As if!
Surely it is a birthgivers right to an abortion not a womans.
So many people so concerned about womens rights who would happily throw them under a bus for daring to want to protect their own sex based rights.
Energoatom & the US-based Westinghouse work constructing new AR-1000 power units at Ukrainian nuclear power plants. Energoatom's CEO told that the plan is to build two power units at the Khmelnytsky NPP, as well as one each at other plants, Tyzhden writes https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1521550483781005313
The number of Irish passports being issued in the North has surpassed their UK counterparts for the first time on record, newly obtained figures reveal.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office in London has confirmed 48,555 citizens in Northern Ireland applied for a UK passport in 2020 – at least 356 fewer than those who opted for an Irish passport the same year (48,911).
Official figures on Irish passports in the region are only available for those issued through Northern Ireland Passport Express (NIPX), available through post offices, and do not include citizens who apply for their passports directly from Dublin.
Because of Brexit, Irish people in the UK have more rights than British people
Except that their homeland is ruled by diktat by unelected bureacrats in Brussels, and if Dublin steps out of fiscal line, their budgets have to go to Berlin first for approval, before they head to the Dail
Not something I would wish for the UK. Thank God the 40 year nightmare is over, for us
More anti EU drivel ! Irish people have more rights than Brits and can live and work in 27 EU countries and the UK .
Personally, I would remove the right of Irish people to live and work in the UK, until and unless Ireland steps up to the plate on Defence spending. Enough of their bollix, now
You want Ireland to participate in EU common defence policy? Is this really a sober assessment of the best strategic outcome for the UK in the long term?
Seattle Times ($) - Review: Paul McCartney treats Seattle fans to 60 years of rock history during Climate Pledge Arena concert (May 2, 2022 at 9:08 pm Updated May 3, 2022 at 9:59 am)
Boom!
There was an audible gasp when the flame cannons at the front of the stage thunder-clapped in, seemingly to the delight of McCartney’s longtime guitarist Rusty Anderson, who was either tickled by the crowd’s reaction or a little spooked himself. Before anyone could catch their breath, the expansive, cinematic tune darted off faster than a BMW motorcycle, with a Mysterious Rock Star Breeze (aka a hidden fan) blowing McCartney’s feathery hair as he hammered away on the piano. Fireworks cracked and banged overhead during the somersaulting, hairpin-turning, bad-guy-dueling crescendo that capped the most dramatic number of McCartney’s marathon set, triggering the longest applause of the night once everyone finally came up for air.
Turns out the Liverpool lad, who turns 80 next month, still has some razzle dazzle and we hadn’t even made it to the encore.
On Monday night, McCartney and his ace backing band settled into their first of two Climate Pledge Arena shows, already sounding in midtour form (minus any strained vocal cords) just two dates into their first outing since the pandemic. With the appropriately titled Got Back tour opening in Spokane last Thursday — a city Sir Paul had never played — Washington state became the center of the rock icon’s COVID-era comeback and seemed to pick up where his last cut-short outing left off, with a similarly constructed set list. (They even closed with the same mammoth “Abbey Road” medley.)
In typical fashion, McCartney’s first Seattle show in six years was a 2.5-hour stroll through the superstar’s extensive catalog of solo material, choice Wings cuts and Beatles classics, which includes some of the most enduring songs in popular music history. . . .
Blimey, talk about harsh, didn't know the Fins could be so ice cold.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
It's a good point, though, and it was certainly painfully true in WWII.
You mean, when the Irish were threatened with invasion from the UK?
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
Yes, the UK did consider whether in the wider interests of saving European civilisation and tens of millions of lives from the most severe threat ever, it might be necessary to invade Ireland. Churchill showed the most amazing restraint in not doing so, but it would obviously has been morally justified if it had been required, not least in the interests of the Irish.
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Well, if you can't share your sources, fair enough. I was just intrigued, that's all.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
When you're engaged in total war against the most dangerously evil regime in history - a regime which wouldn't have cared a fig for Irish neutrality and certainly wouldn't have respected the rights of Irish citizens once it had succeeded in its aim of hegemony over all of Europe - then, yes, it shows great restraint to respect the dubious neutrality of a state which is free-loading on your sacrifices.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Don't agree. Precisely because of its imperial history, Ireland was in a very difficult position, with a civil war startting the moment it plumped formally for one side or the other. The Irish also supported the UK a lot more than is often believed.
Talk me through the SNP’s Defence policy
As I understand it you are still fully committed to the swift removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and waters. Because you revile nuclear weapons and regard them as unacceptable. Fair enough. Brave, but fair.
Except that your other big Defence position is to remain firmly in NATO, precisely because it is a nuclear alliance, with nuclear weapons provided by the US, UK, and France, and we all now see how important it is to have nukes, it means you don’t get invaded.
Except that you want to try and make it more difficult for the UK to wield a nuclear deterrent?
So you are simultaneously fiercely against, strongly in favour of, and fiercely against nuclear weapons, all at the same time? And you want Scotland to be not protected, and protected, and not protected, by nukes?
Colour me Unionist, but I am not sure this is entirely coherent, any more
Quite, it's difficult, especially now.
But it doesn't change the logic of the Irish situation in 1939-45.
At least you admit the problem. Commendable. Most PB Nats airily dismiss the notion there even IS a problem.
I guess Sturgeon has to succour a hardcore of anti-NATO, anti-nuke fundamentalist Nats, as they are her activists, but I see big trouble coming down the line, policywise. It’s as big a difficulty as the currency, debt, bank and pensions, perhaps much bigger
I agree with you on Ireland, they probably did the best they could in WW2, what with their ‘difficult’ history re Britain. The condolences on Hitler’s death were a step too far, however
Andrew Marr has a peice in last weekend's Newstatesman exploring the question of SNP and the nukes at Faslane.
He says it is going to be a massive issue if there is an indie referendum next year.
Interestingly, he claims he has been told by defence analysts that the MoD looked at the option of moving submarine base to S Wales or English South coast and concluded it would not be viable. There is, it is claimed, no place else for them. The idea has been mooted that we would bunk up with the French.
I have actually predicted on a few occasions that the winds of change are such that this could all be the undoing of the SNP. They can be depicted as Putin's idiots with their stance over trident. It was never a serious issue until now, it has just become one.
Certainly looks as if it will be a big issue next year unless ukraine war is sorted and Putin gone.
On the other hand I doubt there will be a referendum now. SNP wont risk another loss so soon.
Things will start hotting up again if Sturgeon goes to court to defy the information commissioner on legal advice. She's talked about 2023 too much to back down now.
The biggest issue will be a hard border on the M74. Stuff like currency is hard to get a grip on.
But I’m struggling to get worked up over Roe v Wade.
It’s not covered by the constitution, nor by common law, and as far as I can tell the original SC justification was weak.
So let States decide, as ghastly as that must be for the poor women who have to live in said States.
I agree. I’m also highly pro-choice but if you actually look at the leaked, draft decision, it has merit. There is nothing in the US constitution which says women have a basic right to terminate a fetus. Finessing this as a right to privacy is bogus
The voters must decide in individual states, that’s democracy. Equally, democracy allows the president and senate to pass a law explicitly allowing abortion everywhere if they have enough votes in DC
This decision arguably allows such a vote to ban abortion nationwide, too. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1521311115392737280 If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the Opinion of the Court, it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: It will enable a GOP Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.
I’m not sure even the GOP are that stupid . To ban abortion nationwide would cause such a furore that they would be pulverized in future elections . And banning contraception would be unbelievable given most Americans aren’t Catholic.
The democracy angle is a red herring imo. An outright ban on abortion is removing a fundamental right of women that I think should be protected regardless of which party happens to be in power, state or federal level, at any one time. States' Rights - ie "democracy" - was offered in the 1960s as for why racial segregation should continue in parts of the South. It didn't wash then, as a reason for allowing something appalling, and for me it doesn't scrub up any better now.
Funnily enough, I bet you’d argue exactly the opposite way with regard to gun laws and the 2nd Amendment
I would, yes, and I'd be right to do so. Literal minded consistency, regardless of nuance and context, is the enemy of good judgement.
You are so brilliantly boring
Just brilliant, I think you mean. Fat fingers?
But let's not bicker about this abortion banning monstrosity - we clearly agree about it and that's rather precious.
We agree in practice, but I maybe see nuance where you apparently don’t. The unborn child also has rights as @Sean_F eloquently puts it downthread (better than me). Otherwise we’d have no moral problems with third trimester abortion of perfectly viable babies
When do those rights commence? It’s the devil of a question and I respect the beliefs of those who might put it at conception, even if I disagree
So here's my insight of the day (and listen up, this is important; a new insight is sadly a once in a decade thing for me these days)
What if we were marsupials?
Or what if marsupial humans had converged on us like marsupial dogs did (see under Thylacinus cynocephalus): Would we think birth was such a big deal, or even a thing at all, if it's just a crawl from pouch to tit?
Taking this thought further, is placental birth such a big deal either? OK it's a vaginal slither rather than just popping out the door, but that's only a matter of degree, and the human infant is, if you ignore johnny come lately fixes like bottled milk and wet nurses, 100% as dependent on its mother after birth, as before, just getting a different brand of bodily fluid via a different route. The only real difference is it is getting air direct from the atmosphere. So what is so special about that, that it is a talisman against murder?
Comments
https://lookup.boe.ohio.gov/vtrapp/meigs/getballot.aspx?elect=20220503P&prsid=06____1&bpty=D
https://lookup.boe.ohio.gov/vtrapp/meigs/getballot.aspx?elect=20220503P&prsid=06____1&bpty=R
The hint of American institutional breakdown and coming Right wing super hegemony we see over the Supreme Court is a reminder a possible Putin strategy is simply to outlast Western sanctions and enthusiasm for Ukraine until Trump comes back to power in 2024.
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1521481899864211466?cxt=HHwWlIC-2cHusZ0qAAAA
What matters is something like personhood. I don't think there is a moment when personhood starts. It develops gradually over time. Many traditions, many decision makers, from Jewish custom through to the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK, have arrived on a decision of a roughly similar point through the pregnancy if you need a hard cut-off.
A, say, 2-week old foetus is obviously not a person. The majority of zygotes (the thing after the moment of conception) spontaneously abort, yet no-one, not even the most "pro-life" zealot, ever really treats them as if those were all people who had died. One can only conclude that their objections to abortion have more to do with their moralising over sex and wanting to control women. If they actually cared about foetal life, they'd be donating money to "save" the "lives" of the much larger number of foetuses that die from spontaneous abortion than from man-made abortion.
Indeed, the fact that the Republicans are obsessed with abortion but opposed to doing anything to support newborns, to improve healthcare for pregnant mothers, to support children growing up in poverty or at risk from health challenges (from pollution to COVID-19) says it all.
This isn't really about defining when life begins. This is barely about religion. It's about controlling women and their reproductive choices.
As one senior [Finnish] official puts it: “Please explain to me why Ireland is celebrating a centenary of its independence from the UK, yet, to defend that sovereignty, relies almost entirely on the UK?”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/finnish-officials-highly-sceptical-about-ireland-s-ability-to-defend-its-territory-1.4867585
Plus it's dreadfully authoritarian. Eg my wife and also ex wife are Catholics and would just about under no circumstances have an abortion. As well as finding it traumatic (as I bet most women would) they both think it's wrong. But would they want the law of the land to impose their views about this on to women who feel differently? No way. They wouldn't dream of it. Yet this is exactly what's being proposed.
If I went around calling her Julian I would be a pointlessly insolent oaf, I would cause her a deal of distress, and she would no longer be my friend.
Bart wants to be Bart, he/she is Bart. It’s quite simple
Thats why I am suspicious of any law that is billed as the "right thing to do" or "moral " in any way as nobody (when it comes down to it) is that moral they dont bend the laws if need be.
Incidentally I saw your earlier post suggesting Francis was behaving towards Putin as Pius XII did towards Hitler. May I ask what insider knowledge you have that leads you to think Francis has tried to have Putin assassinated?
https://www.agrayarea.info/publications/index.htm
The new Westminster map helps Labour significantly but maybe not enough.
A demographic that's already been pushed & pulled for decades, not entirely by abortion issue but it's been big factor for sure. And was key to Biden's 2020 victory esp. in AZ, PA and GA; and largely responsible (along with 45) for Dems 2-fer pick-up in Jan 2021 in Peach State that flipped the Senate.
On other hand, also played major role in Nov 2021 Republican victory for Virginia governor, and near-win in New Jersey.
Like I said, key swing voters. For whom Roe v Wade is an important consideration, if not an electoral litmus test, for themselves and perhaps even more for their daughters and grand-daughters.
Many of these GOP pro-choice woman have accommodated themselves to voting for pro-life Republicans on many occasions. On basis of balance of factors besides abortion.
Repeal of Roe v Wade may change this calculus, for how many?
Note that a very large majority wants at least some restrictions on abortion.
(I would add that, some years ago, Gallup did a study of voting decisions, based on abortion. As I recall, they found then that the issue was important to small minorities (less than 10 percent on each side), but that there were more pro-life voters than pro-choice voters. As you would expect, most in each group were women.)
"I ain't taking no damn vaccine, it's my body and I'll do what I like with it"
"It's someone else's body and I'm damn sure I'm not going to let them get to do what they want with it"
The number of Irish passports being issued in the North has surpassed their UK counterparts for the first time on record, newly obtained figures reveal.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office in London has confirmed 48,555 citizens in Northern Ireland applied for a UK passport in 2020 – at least 356 fewer than those who opted for an Irish passport the same year (48,911).
Official figures on Irish passports in the region are only available for those issued through Northern Ireland Passport Express (NIPX), available through post offices, and do not include citizens who apply for their passports directly from Dublin.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/more-irish-than-uk-passports-issued-in-northern-ireland-for-first-time-1.4867712
As for your second paragraph, hmmm..
Edit: and negatively, too, obvs.
Also, level of intensity of feeling is a factor, that waxes and wanes one way to the other depending on what's happening.
I don't think 'not invading a sovereign country that was neutral and intended to stay that way' is a form of restraint. As Eamonn de Valera politely reminded Churchill in 1945.
And he would have lost the huge conttribution the Irish made to the UK wartime economy, from navvies building airfields to nurses in hospitals.
In any case, there was a great deal of informal cooperation under the table.
The Irish position in WWII was an absolute disgrace.
Not something I would wish for the UK. Thank God the 40 year nightmare is over, for us
In Indiana, closing 6.00pm, earliest in US IIRC (11pm UK for most of state, 12midnight for NW & SW Indiana)
The sun shines down on Bourbon Street, the drinkers have already started their days
They agreed to our use of Lough Foyle for naval and air purposes. The ownership of the Lough is disputed, but the Southern Irish authorities are tacitly not pressing their claim in present conditions and are also ignoring any flying by our aircraft over the Donegal shore of the Lough, which is necessary in certain wind conditions to enable flying boats to take off from the Lough.
They have agreed to use by our aircraft based on Lough Erne of a corridor over Southern Irish territory and territorial waters for the purpose of flying out to the Atlantic.
They have arranged for the immediate transmission to the United Kingdom Representative's Office in Dublin of reports of submarine activity received from their coast watching service.
They arranged for the broadening of reports by their Air observation Corps of aircraft sighted over or approaching Southern Irish territory. (This does not include our aircraft using the corridor referred to in (b) above.)
They arranged for the extinction of trade and business lighting in coastal towns where such lighting was alleged to afford a useful landmark for German aircraft.
They have continued to supply us with meteorological reports.
They have agreed to the use by our ships and aircraft of two wireless direction-finding stations at Malin Head.
They have supplied particulars of German crashed aircraft and personnel crashed or washed ashore or arrested on land.
They arranged for staff talks on the question of co-operation against a possible German invasion of Southern Ireland, and close contact has since been maintained between the respective military authorities.
They continue to intern all German fighting personnel reaching Southern Ireland. On the other hand, though after protracted negotiations, Allied service personnel are now allowed to depart freely and full assistance is given in recovering damaged aircraft.
Recently, in connection with the establishment of prisoner of war camps in Northern Ireland, they have agreed to return or at least intern any German prisoners who may escape from Northern Ireland across the border to Southern Ireland.
They have throughout offered no objection to the departure from Southern Ireland of persons wishing to serve in the United Kingdom Forces nor to the journey on leave of such persons to and from Southern Ireland (in plain clothes).
They have continued to exchange information with our security authorities regarding all aliens (including Germans) in Southern Ireland.
They have (within the last few days) agreed to our establishing a radar station in Southern Ireland for use against the latest form of submarine activity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II#The_Cranborne_Report
The internet knows nothing of this, and it doesn't seem a typically papal undertaking
It no longer makes sense. It’s just free-riding.
But since Britain had given them up in exchange for agreeing Irish neutrality at a time when war was becoming pretty much inevitable, it would be rather unfair to blame them for that.
I've found it incredulous that people can honestly believe that, by disarming and defunding the military, getting rid of the bomb, etc... the world is somehow made safer. Otherwise smart people honestly believe this, it is effectively in the Green Party manifesto, and was behind a lot of Corbyn's popularity, and there are big hints of it in the SNP. However, it has always been obvious to me that it isn't true, that the world is safe for us precisely because we have these assets, and that is just the regrettable consequence of thousands of years of human development. Ukraine is evidence of why I think I am right. I would guess there aren't many pacifists in Ukraine.
Which may strike some as a bit odd.
As I understand it you are still fully committed to the swift removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and waters. Because you revile nuclear weapons and regard them as unacceptable. Fair enough. Brave, but fair.
Except that your other big Defence position is to remain firmly in NATO, precisely because it is a nuclear alliance, with nuclear weapons provided by the US, UK, and France, and we all now see how important it is to have nukes, it means you don’t get invaded.
Except that you want to try and make it more difficult for the UK to wield a nuclear deterrent?
So you are simultaneously fiercely against, strongly in favour of, and fiercely against nuclear weapons, all at the same time? And you want Scotland to be not protected, and protected, and not protected, by nukes?
Colour me Unionist, but I am not sure this is entirely coherent, any more
If you think that romanticisation of pirates is unpleasant that's more than just me you're up against. Though I adopted the pirate flag in response to others repeatedly using pirate as an insult against my beliefs.
But it doesn't change the logic of the Irish situation in 1939-45.
Well, hard to judge, I think she might be concerned.
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1521490781638385664?t=ixBllYrcbmw3wXrvIRBwsQ&s=19
Sounds a bit Tom Knox
The SNP position on nuclear weapons is surely more simple than that. They live in Scotland. Which provides leverage over Westminster in divorce proceedings.
I guess Sturgeon has to succour a hardcore of anti-NATO, anti-nuke fundamentalist Nats, as they are her activists, but I see big trouble coming down the line, policywise. It’s as big a difficulty as the currency, debt, bank and pensions, perhaps much bigger
I agree with you on Ireland, they probably did the best they could in WW2, what with their ‘difficult’ history re Britain. The condolences on Hitler’s death were a step too far, however
Fundamental human rights should be enshrined. A woman's access to safe and legal abortion is one such. The right to bear arms is not.
People can disagree - both on whether fundamental human rights should be enshrined and if so on what they are - but there's no 'utter fail through inconsistency'. As if!
The Court observed that there was still great disagreement over when an unborn fetus becomes a living being.
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 159.
What's curious is the idea that the point at which life begins can be pinpointed precisely.
I might be completely wrong about this, but I suspect most people would accept that there's no right answer to that question. That's why the best thing to do is let the elected representatives - a group conspicuously absent from the Supreme Court ruling's list - decide in a free vote.
The Eastern European and Nordic countries will never rely solely on France/Germany to defend them against Russia, and will always want the USA/UK on board, for reasons which are now bleedin’ obvious. Hence Finland/Sweden joining NATO this month. They’re not waiting for Berlin to grow big hairy cullions
But let's not bicker about this abortion banning monstrosity - we clearly agree about it and that's rather precious.
He says it is going to be a massive issue if there is an indie referendum next year.
Interestingly, he claims he has been told by defence analysts that the MoD looked at the option of moving submarine base to S Wales or English South coast and concluded it would not be viable. There is, it is claimed, no place else for them. The idea has been mooted that we would bunk up with the French.
Moreso that in a game of Rights Top Trumps it beats the right to life of the unborn child.
When do those rights commence? It’s the devil of a question and I respect the beliefs of those who might put it at conception, even if I disagree
That shunts the next vote (and there will be one) into the late 2020s, probably early 2030s. By that time the “generation” argument will have expired, as well
"I was nonplussed when the PM told Susanna Reid on ITV's Good Morning Britain that he's reluctant to increase universal credit and benefits and protect poorer people from the ravages of inflation because doing so would stoke inflation and force the Bank of England to put up interest rates."
"If the PM wants to impose what used to be known as an incomes policy - a ceiling on rises in incomes - why should it only apply to those on benefits and universal credit, why should it apply only to the poorest people?"
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-05-03/peston-is-t-pm-right-that-increasing-benefits-would-end-up-hurting-everyone
===
This government is just all over the place on cost of living. Johnson hasn't a bloody clue what he's talking about.
On the other hand I doubt there will be a referendum now. SNP wont risk another loss so soon.
As apparently the ancients he studied so assiduously weren't too keen on mathematics?
“Russia accuses Israel of backing ‘neo-Nazis’ in Kyiv as diplomatic row grows”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/russia-accuses-israel-backing-neo-nazis-kyiv-diplomatic-row-grows?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
That's perhaps where the problem lies.
Sean was making the obvious sound deep. He has a talent for that. So do lots of you grinders on here.
Ooo bitchy!
(but I love you all)
In the event of a future "Yes" vote, the "No" side still get a say.
Of course the losers could take the Second Vote/Revoke line like the losers of the Brexit vote and end up with a shit-show like Brexit.
But, if they accepted the result and engaged, you might well find that a majority of Scots would like to keep the nukes and NATO.
And, on the currency issue, though the SNP are currently arguing for a Scottish dollar, a lot of both Yes and No voters might be more re-assured if there was a movement to a currency known to be of value i.e. the Euro.
So many people so concerned about womens rights who would happily throw them under a bus for daring to want to protect their own sex based rights.
Energoatom's CEO told that the plan is to build two power units at the Khmelnytsky NPP, as well as one each at other plants, Tyzhden writes
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1521550483781005313
Boom!
There was an audible gasp when the flame cannons at the front of the stage thunder-clapped in, seemingly to the delight of McCartney’s longtime guitarist Rusty Anderson, who was either tickled by the crowd’s reaction or a little spooked himself. Before anyone could catch their breath, the expansive, cinematic tune darted off faster than a BMW motorcycle, with a Mysterious Rock Star Breeze (aka a hidden fan) blowing McCartney’s feathery hair as he hammered away on the piano. Fireworks cracked and banged overhead during the somersaulting, hairpin-turning, bad-guy-dueling crescendo that capped the most dramatic number of McCartney’s marathon set, triggering the longest applause of the night once everyone finally came up for air.
Turns out the Liverpool lad, who turns 80 next month, still has some razzle dazzle and we hadn’t even made it to the encore.
On Monday night, McCartney and his ace backing band settled into their first of two Climate Pledge Arena shows, already sounding in midtour form (minus any strained vocal cords) just two dates into their first outing since the pandemic. With the appropriately titled Got Back tour opening in Spokane last Thursday — a city Sir Paul had never played — Washington state became the center of the rock icon’s COVID-era comeback and seemed to pick up where his last cut-short outing left off, with a similarly constructed set list. (They even closed with the same mammoth “Abbey Road” medley.)
In typical fashion, McCartney’s first Seattle show in six years was a 2.5-hour stroll through the superstar’s extensive catalog of solo material, choice Wings cuts and Beatles classics, which includes some of the most enduring songs in popular music history. . . .
The biggest issue will be a hard border on the M74. Stuff like currency is hard to get a grip on.
What if we were marsupials?
Or what if marsupial humans had converged on us like marsupial dogs did (see under Thylacinus cynocephalus): Would we think birth was such a big deal, or even a thing at all, if it's just a crawl from pouch to tit?
Taking this thought further, is placental birth such a big deal either? OK it's a vaginal slither rather than just popping out the door, but that's only a matter of degree, and the human infant is, if you ignore johnny come lately fixes like bottled milk and wet nurses, 100% as dependent on its mother after birth, as before, just getting a different brand of bodily fluid via a different route. The only real difference is it is getting air direct from the atmosphere. So what is so special about that, that it is a talisman against murder?