That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
That's not the choice at all. Here it is: You vote for a government which is a member of the European Council and the Council of the EU. Through the first, your PM nominates the European Commission; through the second, your ministers vote on the draft laws from the Commission. Your government appoints the leaders of the other institutions through the Councils. The one exception is the Parliament, where you vote for MEPs who can independently veto the draft laws from the Commission. So there is your democracy and your civil service. Some of these steps could be removed, if governments would cede national sovereignty over the EU; they don't want to.
I'd simply refer you to Bart's point downthread.
When it comes to lawmaking, the process you describe simply isn't robust enough. We are back to "you vote for a government that appoints someone who influences the process," which is wholly inadequate in a democracy.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
I hope you dont miss a fathers funeral, or the last hours of a relative in hospital, or the birth of a child because of such a protest then. All have happened in the U.K. this week.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
Quite. All assumed either to be dole scroungers or Tarquin the Trustafarian etc.
Is it just an assumption?
Indigo Rumbelow and the others that keep being put forward in the news certainly seems to be from the same mould as Tarquin the Trustafarian.
It may surprise you to know that, with a heavy heart, I voted remain. My side lost. I have long despaired of the very politicised nature of what started as an Economic community, and became an attempt to create a United States of Europe. The people I blame most are the cowards in power in the U.K. who consistently failed to give the people a say in how the EEC/EU was changing. Right up to Gordon Brown scuttling through the back door to sign the Lisbon Treaty away from the cameras. They rarely tried to persuade, culminating in the awful lies and mischaracterisation of the referendum campaign itself. Remain were as dishonest as leave. I genuinely believe that the EU was U.K. democratic at heart, and that the bits the public got to cote for had little real power, at least when compared to national members of parliament. I don’t think that’s my prejudice, it’s my observation.
What's with this heavy ♥ business?
I voted Remain with the warm glow of universal liberal values and enlightened internationalism suffusing my very being.
What kind of universal liberal values explicitly exclude non-Europeans from membership?
Not the way to look at it. It's the very long game - so long it will never end - but the direction of travel should be ever more integration between the countries of the world and ever wider enshrinement of the values of liberty, equality and brotherhood.
If that's your long game then you should actively hate the EU. Instead of European countries teaming up at the UN, WTO, etc, to push for universal liberal solutions, they've formed an exclusive club.
What toss.
Is Essex County Council illiberal because it does not include districts from neighbouring counties?
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Untrue, and irrelevant, since they don't have to play nicey-nicey if they don't want, the issue at hand is how they should be treated if they do not play nicey-nicey, whether states should take a sterner line with them. They might even welcome it doing so, as a way of really shaking up the system.
People and governments need a push to take radical actions. I'd say society in general and the government have responded to the fervour of campaigners in recent decades, and in recognition that many changes are in their own interests as well.
Whether lying across a road is really helping sell the message further I question, though I cannot know, but is unconnected to the question of whether, having done so, such a person should face the consequences they claim to be ready to face.
I'd say yes, personally, where it is heightening the risk of a serious incident happening.
It is perfectly fine to not want to be in the EU. Most of the world's not in the EU! It's also fine to have objections to the institutional structure of the EU. But please don't pretend that the way the UK has implemented democracy post-Douglas Hume is the only valid definition of democracy, because it's not. If you can elect MEPs who can stop a law passing, that is a democracy. Right?
Though yes a younger more centrist candidate like Biden's Transport Secretary and 2020 candidate Buttigieg would be the Democrats best bet. Especially if De Santis beats Trump for the GOP nomination, as in 2020 a lot of Biden votes were anti Trump rather than for him
Although I noted your post yesterday saying that 30% of the electorate, inc many Dems and Independents, wouldn't vote for a gay president?
People say all kinds of things to pollsters that they don't follow through with when they actually vote.
Yep. But I'd have thought this would skew the other way and make it worse - ie more people would say they're cool with a gay prez when they aren't than would say they aren't when they are.
That seems a surprisingly high proportion of the electorate but then again we must always remind ourselves that America is a much more religious society than the UK.
We have a higher percentage of Muslims than the US though and many of them would not vote for a gay PM
Also a lot more in the C of E (merely being 'in the Anglican Communion' doesn't count as different A churches have different policies anyway). And you're always going on about how outrageous it would be for the C of E to be made to follow the law of the land and marry gay couples.
To be precise the law of the land is that CoE clergy cannot marry gay couples. It is enshrined in statute.
The law of the English land is that gay couples can be married. Full stop. That the C of E has a letout is an abominable outrage, given the special privileges which it possesses.
Do other churches/religious groups not have the same opt out? Or are you saying that doesn't really matter because they are not 'official' religions.
We're told that the importance of the C of E is that anyone in England can get married in the parish church (if nominally Xtian, presumably). Because it is established yadda yadda. Unless you are gay ...
The question is wehther the other religious groups have the same automatic right to be considered to 'marry' people, sure. But they are not the ideological arm of the state.
The Church of England is just the established church, not an arm of the state as such.
However given the Bishop of Oxford, one of the most senior diocesan Bishops in the C of E now backs gay marriages in churches where Church of England vicars are willing to do so I expect it will happen in the next few years anyway.
Even if a few evangelicals leave for Pentecostal or Baptist churches, or Anglo Catholics for Rome as some did over women priests
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
That is not the situation now, and not the situation which has been ever since gat marriage was law of the land in England - unless of course youj wanted to get married in the established state church of England. Gays are very definitely inferior beings in your world. And though that is not your failt, you are far too happy to accept it.
Read the Old Testament or Koran and gays are definitely inferior beings too there. Hence no prospect of most Muslim mosques or Orthodox Rabbis in Synagogues or conservative Roman Catholic or Orthodox or charismatic evangelical churches holding gay weddings anytime soon.
However Jesus himself never said anything against homosexual unions so as I said in a few years the C of E will most likely join the Lutheran, Methodist, Church of Scotland and Church in Wales, SEP and Church of Scotland and US Episcopal church and allow it too as those are the churches generally on the more liberal wing of Christianity now
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
I’m not sure I agree with them. It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
A defining challenge of our era that we are tackling head on. Did you imagine 10 years ago that there would be days where most of our electricity comes from renewable sources? The issue I have with extinction rebellion and the rest is that they act as if nothing is being done. The reality is far from it.
No, I didn’t. It’s great, isn’t it? I tend to be a techno-optimist about this stuff, but others will not doubt tell me I am living in denial.
Yes, it is great, and the protesters don’t reflect reality. I’m sorry if that makes me a gammon, but it’s what I think.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
When the state attacks, you necessarily have to go beyond the law in self-defence.
Trying to work out if the "Russia has a cunning plan" mob or "Musk has a cunning plan" mob are more delusional.
There's a theory on Deluded Lefty Twitter that Musk bought Twitter (probably with Trumpite, Russian and Chinese money) to deliberately run it into the ground, and destroy it in weeks, what with it being a liberal menace to human society
Most people are relatively new to knowing anything at all about Elon Musk. What they misunderstand is that he is a massive drama queen and continually exaggerates business risk. After all he is hero of his own story and it’s a more exciting story that he personally drives failing businesses not just to survival but a thriving state. It’s an even better story because there is much truth in it.
As for Twitter, it’s clear that running a social media platform requires a cuter understanding of the human condition than Musk is equipped with. Not his fault, he has other extraordinary gifts. But he’s not great at reading the room and the Twitterati is the biggest room of all. But, he’s proven excellent at cutting costs, product innovation and squeezing revenues in pretty imaginative ways.
I would be surprised if he doesn’t make Twitter a more financially viable business than when he bought it. I don’t have much of a view on whether he’ll be getting a good return on the $44bn.
Where you surprised that Musk tried to pull out of the Twit deal almost immediately after signing onto it?
What amazed me, was that he seemingly imagined that the Delaware court would let him get away with it!
No he changes his mind about stuff all the time. It’s easy to see why in this case as leaving aside the rights or wrongs of his bot claims, he pitched the offer near the peak of the market.
As for “collapsing in real time”, Musk sold a load more Tesla stock since the deal closed. Wouldn’t surprise me to learn he sold more yesterday. I would guess he’s arming himself for Twitter to weather a storm.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
I hope you dont miss a fathers funeral, or the last hours of a relative in hospital, or the birth of a child because of such a protest then. All have happened in the U.K. this week.
Yes, we’ll protest is often disruptive. And if it doesn’t disrupt it is largely ignored.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Pope?
Errr, no, the Head of Government chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury, which matches the way VDL and Michel are chosen.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Prime Minister.
Errr, no, the Prime Minister is an elected Member of Parliament that is then chosen in a method determined by his or her peers of other elected Members of Parliament.
Well, if the PM's position is so unassailably democratic, so is his choice of archbishop, surely? Your starting point is little England good, big Europe bad, and this has really nothing to do with democracy.
The EU is run by its "House of Lords"
By which you mean the elected national governments, some imperfectly democratic of course.
No. Appointees are not elected.
Not getting this whole democracy lark, are you?
If you call Rishi Sunak an "appointee", yes. (Some like Macron have an even more direct mandate than Sunak, but most have the same mandate.)
No, Sunak is not an appointee, he's a directly elected Member of Parliament. He's zero steps removed from being elected by the voters.
Anyone Sunak appoints is not elected, unlike Sunak. Sunak was elected, but the Archbishop of Canterbury/UVDL or anyone else appointed is not.
But there is a real and significant difference between a directly elected leader (say, Macron) and a indirectly elected one.
Opponents of the EU deliberately (or just moronically) refuse to concede the various nuances in the way democracies work.
Both Macron and Sunak are directly elected.
Sunak sits as a Member of the Commons which is exactly what he was elected to be. There he is chosen to be the first among equals, but he is not a President, as those who get too big for their boots or lose the confidence of their peers are liable to discover. See: May, Theresa; Johnson, Boris and most spectacularly Truss, Liz.
Macron is directly elected, just like Sunak is.
UVDL, Charles Michel and Justin Welby are not. They are appointees.
This is what I mean. You just deliberately obscure the real difference between Sunak and Macron to make your point.
Of course UVDL et al are appointees, but the premises of your argument are intellectually dishonest because you want to pretend that appointees are in some sense undemocratic.
There are differences between the way we hold elections, sure, but both Sunak and Macron are elected under our systems, by the voters, at our elections.
Of course appointees are undemocratic, they've not been democratically elected, so that's pretty much the meaning of the word.
So if an elected prime minister appoints a SPAD that is undemocratic in your view. Should there be elections to choose SPADs?
If the SPAD makes laws by themselves then yes, that is undemocratic.
If the SPAD is an advisor (clue is in the name) to the elected politicians, but the elected politicians retain the responsibility for making and passing the laws then no, it is not.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
I am not unhappy to see the law broken. Rosa Parks broke a law perhaps when she refused to get to the back of the bus.
I expect though to see lawbreaking addressed by the police (proportionately).
My issue is that people are much more worked up about Miss Arabella Fannyfeathers et al and not about the terrifying effects of climate change already around us and disproportionately affecting third world countries.
I can’t control the weather. I can choose to protest in a way that doesn’t endanger lives, cause people to miss funerals, births and dying parents. I get the argument. I just think they are not realistic.
Tuesday self mutilation. Wednesday public urination. Thursday threats to kill and actual assault. What will Friday bring? Cossetted public sector. Time for cuts to our budget.
Trying to work out if the "Russia has a cunning plan" mob or "Musk has a cunning plan" mob are more delusional.
There's a theory on Deluded Lefty Twitter that Musk bought Twitter (probably with Trumpite, Russian and Chinese money) to deliberately run it into the ground, and destroy it in weeks, what with it being a liberal menace to human society
Most people are relatively new to knowing anything at all about Elon Musk. What they misunderstand is that he is a massive drama queen and continually exaggerates business risk. After all he is hero of his own story and it’s a more exciting story that he personally drives failing businesses not just to survival but a thriving state. It’s an even better story because there is much truth in it.
As for Twitter, it’s clear that running a social media platform requires a cuter understanding of the human condition than Musk is equipped with. Not his fault, he has other extraordinary gifts. But he’s not great at reading the room and the Twitterati is the biggest room of all. But, he’s proven excellent at cutting costs, product innovation and squeezing revenues in pretty imaginative ways.
I would be surprised if he doesn’t make Twitter a more financially viable business than when he bought it. I don’t have much of a view on whether he’ll be getting a good return on the $44bn.
Sounds plausuble. Seems like a lot of aggravation to put himself through, but he obviously thrives on that to a degree.
As far as top billionaires go, he might respond in strange fashion but I suppose he's probably more likely to treat you like a human being in his wierdness than Bezos, who probably only sees a spreadsheet of calculated worth when looking at others (my apologies to friends and family of the good Mr Bezos).
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
That's not the choice at all. Here it is: You vote for a government which is a member of the European Council and the Council of the EU. Through the first, your PM nominates the European Commission; through the second, your ministers vote on the draft laws from the Commission. Your government appoints the leaders of the other institutions through the Councils. The one exception is the Parliament, where you vote for MEPs who can independently veto the draft laws from the Commission. So there is your democracy and your civil service. Some of these steps could be removed, if governments would cede national sovereignty over the EU; they don't want to.
I'd simply refer you to Bart's point downthread.
When it comes to lawmaking, the process you describe simply isn't robust enough. We are back to "you vote for a government that appoints someone who influences the process," which is wholly inadequate in a democracy.
It depends to what extent you believe the EU’s remit should be subject to *direct* democratic input.
There are various, totally respectable answers to this and “wholly inadequate” is just your view.
Personally I found Cummings’s influence inside Downing Street much more “wholly inadequate”.
Anyone who believes in democracy should be much more exercised in affairs closer to home.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
When the state attacks you necessarily have to go beyond the law in self-defence.
You personally endangered me by refusing to have the vaccine, thus encouraging the spread of a sometimes lethal and often crippling disease. By your logic I would have been within my natural rights to push you off a cliff on your ridiculous late-middle-aged deliberately-made-illegally-loud motorbike
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
There are two separate arguments here. My argument earlier today was about the fact that the protestors were actually driving people away from the cause rather than gaining support for it. I don't think breaking the law during protests is always unacceptable so long as no one is physically hurt (nor stuff damaged) and the legal authorities act in accordance with the law and treat the protestors accordingly. But what they are doing is clearly counterproductive.
My argument with the hypocrite Gardenwalker is that he jumped in and excused the apparent death of someone as a result of the actions of the protestors in Germany. I am glad it is being said that this was not actually the case but that does not forgive Gardenwalker excusing the death because of the righteousness of the cause of the protestors.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
That's not the choice at all. Here it is: You vote for a government which is a member of the European Council and the Council of the EU. Through the first, your PM nominates the European Commission; through the second, your ministers vote on the draft laws from the Commission. Your government appoints the leaders of the other institutions through the Councils. The one exception is the Parliament, where you vote for MEPs who can independently veto the draft laws from the Commission. So there is your democracy and your civil service. Some of these steps could be removed, if governments would cede national sovereignty over the EU; they don't want to.
I'd simply refer you to Bart's point downthread.
When it comes to lawmaking, the process you describe simply isn't robust enough. We are back to "you vote for a government that appoints someone who influences the process," which is wholly inadequate in a democracy.
That is a mischaracterisation -"influences" implies some mysterious shadowy man who is ultimately in control. The reality is that EU laws are made by politicians and people they have appointed to do so, just like UK laws, with multiple veto steps for citizens' representatives elected at both national and European levels, plus a strong _written_ set of rules of the game explaining how it happens.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
Quite. All assumed either to be dole scroungers or Tarquin the Trustafarian etc.
Is it just an assumption?
Indigo Rumbelow and the others that keep being put forward in the news certainly seems to be from the same mould as Tarquin the Trustafarian.
I do hate the expression "annoying all the right people" and would never use it, but sometimes I am bloody tempted.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So UVDL got fewer votes than my Parish Councillors?
Count yourself lucky if your parish council, pointless as they are, sees much voting happen. Ours falls out of sequence with anything notable so most of them seem to get elected unopposed or get co-opted in between times. It’s all family and friends links. I think disrupting their cosy lifestyle might be a retirement project for me.
Town councils certainly are elected with competing party labels, Parish councils in villages though are normally Independent and elected unopposed
They aren’t really independent though, are they? It’s the most powerful local party in a friendship group. Thankfully they have limited powers (and should be abolished) but they can waste public funds on vanity projects.
They shouldn't, as a town councillor myself Parish and Town councils offer by far the closest council to the local community and know most about it and what it wants.
Councillors all come from and meet in the town or village, whereas district councils are always in the biggest town not a village and unitary and county councils are often in a town or city on the other side of the county
Huge logical fallacy there. You're assuming that the "local community" has to be the smallest possible area. But what about larger areas? You can't run a bus service based solely on Epping Middle Lower Parish Council (formerly Church of England, prop. Henry VIII, as modified by Gladstone WE).
No and where did I ever say Essex county council, which runs bus services, should be abolished?
My argument was simply we need town and parish councils too that know their local communities best
There was an episode of Yes, Prime Minister based on the idea of extending that concept to urban areas; units smaller than council wards electing city village councils, whose chairs then became the district council with a hundred or so members.
Didn't Napoleon institute a system like that (perhaps not with the electing part, I forget).?
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
Come now, where is your piratical spirit?
Nobody can stop people breaking the law. The most the state can do is say that there are unpleasant consequences for breaking the law. (This isn't a cheap point- think how many populist headlines depend on getting that point wrong.)
And those consequences can only go so far. The state can only apply them if they can persuade a jury to convict. Which depends in part on what the jury think of the law and the likely punishment.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
I’m not sure I agree with them. It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
A defining challenge of our era that we are tackling head on. Did you imagine 10 years ago that there would be days where most of our electricity comes from renewable sources? The issue I have with extinction rebellion and the rest is that they act as if nothing is being done. The reality is far from it.
No, I didn’t. It’s great, isn’t it? I tend to be a techno-optimist about this stuff, but others will not doubt tell me I am living in denial.
Yes, it is great, and the protesters don’t reflect reality. I’m sorry if that makes me a gammon, but it’s what I think.
Well look, at least you admit it. And that is the first step to recovery.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Pope?
Errr, no, the Head of Government chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury, which matches the way VDL and Michel are chosen.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Prime Minister.
Errr, no, the Prime Minister is an elected Member of Parliament that is then chosen in a method determined by his or her peers of other elected Members of Parliament.
Well, if the PM's position is so unassailably democratic, so is his choice of archbishop, surely? Your starting point is little England good, big Europe bad, and this has really nothing to do with democracy.
The EU is run by its "House of Lords"
By which you mean the elected national governments, some imperfectly democratic of course.
No. Appointees are not elected.
Not getting this whole democracy lark, are you?
If you call Rishi Sunak an "appointee", yes. (Some like Macron have an even more direct mandate than Sunak, but most have the same mandate.)
No, Sunak is not an appointee, he's a directly elected Member of Parliament. He's zero steps removed from being elected by the voters.
Anyone Sunak appoints is not elected, unlike Sunak. Sunak was elected, but the Archbishop of Canterbury/UVDL or anyone else appointed is not.
But there is a real and significant difference between a directly elected leader (say, Macron) and a indirectly elected one.
Opponents of the EU deliberately (or just moronically) refuse to concede the various nuances in the way democracies work.
Both Macron and Sunak are directly elected.
Sunak sits as a Member of the Commons which is exactly what he was elected to be. There he is chosen to be the first among equals, but he is not a President, as those who get too big for their boots or lose the confidence of their peers are liable to discover. See: May, Theresa; Johnson, Boris and most spectacularly Truss, Liz.
Macron is directly elected, just like Sunak is.
UVDL, Charles Michel and Justin Welby are not. They are appointees.
This is what I mean. You just deliberately obscure the real difference between Sunak and Macron to make your point.
Of course UVDL et al are appointees, but the premises of your argument are intellectually dishonest because you want to pretend that appointees are in some sense undemocratic.
There are differences between the way we hold elections, sure, but both Sunak and Macron are elected under our systems, by the voters, at our elections.
Of course appointees are undemocratic, they've not been democratically elected, so that's pretty much the meaning of the word.
So if an elected prime minister appoints a SPAD that is undemocratic in your view. Should there be elections to choose SPADs?
If the SPAD makes laws by themselves then yes, that is undemocratic.
If the SPAD is an advisor (clue is in the name) to the elected politicians, but the elected politicians retain the responsibility for making and passing the laws then no, it is not.
The UK retained the responsibility for making and passing EU laws because it signed up to the system which delegated those powers to the EU. And we didn't like those laws so we left the EU.
It is perfectly fine to not want to be in the EU. Most of the world's not in the EU! It's also fine to have objections to the institutional structure of the EU. But please don't pretend that the way the UK has implemented democracy post-Douglas Hume is the only valid definition of democracy, because it's not. If you can elect MEPs who can stop a law passing, that is a democracy. Right?
None of these posters have a Danny La Rue about what a democracy is.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
Come now, where is your piratical spirit?
Nobody can stop people breaking the law. The most the state can do is say that there are unpleasant consequences for breaking the law. (This isn't a cheap point- think how many populist headlines depend on getting that point wrong.)
And those consequences can only go so far. The state can only apply them if they can persuade a jury to convict. Which depends in part on what the jury think of the law and the likely punishment.
The piratical spirit goes with what I said. If people choose to break the law, then they do so knowing that they can face the consequences of that choice, but are prepared to do so.
A pirate doesn't think "I'll break the law, but I'm a pirate, so I can break the law in full sight of the police/navy/whatever and get away with it". They do what they're prepared to do, knowing its risky, knowing it could have blowback.
If someone is prepared to spend time in prison for their cause, then respect to them for that. If someone thinks they have a good cause so therefore the law doesn't apply to them, then that's not on. The law applies to everybody or nobody.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
Come now, where is your piratical spirit?
Nobody can stop people breaking the law. The most the state can do is say that there are unpleasant consequences for breaking the law. (This isn't a cheap point- think how many populist headlines depend on getting that point wrong.)
And those consequences can only go so far. The state can only apply them if they can persuade a jury to convict. Which depends in part on what the jury think of the law and the likely punishment.
Quite so. In which case I don't get the objection to the state seeking more often than now to persuade a jury to convict ie being firmer. Pretty sure juries have already acquitted some protestors, and if public opinion is with them will continue to do so.
And while some object to how strongly some people wish to see the protestors punished, it's not an unreasonable or inconsistent position to desire to see perceived lawbreakers punished. Is it showing 'venom' to want burglars punished?*
Absolutely fucking mental in Clark. Holy shit. This is election betting deciding stuff
I read that and couldn't make heads or tails of it. Glad I wasn't just been thick
All that’s remaining in NV is mail in. of which only 50K ballots left in Clark. There’s different types of mail in, that come before the day, on day, and after all the way up to Saturday still count.
The confusion is yesterday they said they had about 75k ballots to count and haven't announced any results in between those two statements.
No confusion today. 50k is just more accurate way of saying “about 75k”. You need to throw them some slack, you know, a big pile leaning against a wall could easily have appeared about 75K amount, you can’t expect exact numbers till the pile is counted.
Those of us with hefty bets on the Rep flipping this have no problem with 25k votes getting lost in mere figure of speech. It just quickens things to my pay out.
They explained it all in the presser. 76k before yesterday's 14k so 62k to go 5k need SoS scrutiny 6k not cured which people can do till Monday leaving 51k to count. Certification by a week tomorrow result available the day before so need to count the up to 62k at a rate of at least 10k per day.
Still think Dem win by at least 10k but have cashed out as was being offered most of the £50 @ 2.4 as a cash out. Not worth the risk or the hassle of watching closely for another 7 days
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
There are two separate arguments here. My argument earlier today was about the fact that the protestors were actually driving people away from the cause rather than gaining support for it. I don't think breaking the law during protests is always unacceptable so long as no one is physically hurt (nor stuff damaged) and the legal authorities act in accordance with the law and treat the protestors accordingly. But what they are doing is clearly counterproductive.
My argument with the hypocrite Gardenwalker is that he jumped in and excused the apparent death of someone as a result of the actions of the protestors in Germany. I am glad it is being said that this was not actually the case but that does not forgive Gardenwalker excusing the death because of the righteousness of the cause of the protestors.
I don’t excuse an apparent death. I merely noted a larger context and wondered why it didn’t exercise the same umbrage.
Just another example of you concluding that one plus one equal bananas.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
I’m not sure I agree with them. It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
A defining challenge of our era that we are tackling head on. Did you imagine 10 years ago that there would be days where most of our electricity comes from renewable sources? The issue I have with extinction rebellion and the rest is that they act as if nothing is being done. The reality is far from it.
No, I didn’t. It’s great, isn’t it? I tend to be a techno-optimist about this stuff, but others will not doubt tell me I am living in denial.
Yes, it is great, and the protesters don’t reflect reality. I’m sorry if that makes me a gammon, but it’s what I think.
Well look, at least you admit it. And that is the first step to recovery.
Recovery? Like it’s an illness? Not really fair. People disagree about stuff. No need to be abusive ( I accept I niggled about the overseas voting first😀). I generally think I’m fairly liberal, right thinking person. I want a world we’re we have reached sustainable lives for all, not just the rich west. But I’m also a realist, something the nutters are not. Whoops, called them nutters. Sadly, I think many of them have serious mental issues. They may say the same about me.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
We’ve had this, to death.
We vote for UK governments, who exercised via the Council influence on EU direction.
We also voted for EU parliamentarians who are supposed to provide scrutiny (even if, in practice, Farage and UKIP only turned up to collect their meal allowances).
Personally that was fine with me. I think our democracy had/has issues rather closer to home.
Yep. Fully sovereign. Pooled in the national interest. Successfully mis-sold as being "ruled by bureaucrats in Brussels". So now uncoupled. Still fully sovereign. Just a bit poorer and less influential and less secure. That's your Brexit.
"Ever since we had the baby we've been poorer, more tired, less energetic, and we are unable to go out at night. That's your Brexit"
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
That's not the choice at all. Here it is: You vote for a government which is a member of the European Council and the Council of the EU. Through the first, your PM nominates the European Commission; through the second, your ministers vote on the draft laws from the Commission. Your government appoints the leaders of the other institutions through the Councils. The one exception is the Parliament, where you vote for MEPs who can independently veto the draft laws from the Commission. So there is your democracy and your civil service. Some of these steps could be removed, if governments would cede national sovereignty over the EU; they don't want to.
I'd simply refer you to Bart's point downthread.
When it comes to lawmaking, the process you describe simply isn't robust enough. We are back to "you vote for a government that appoints someone who influences the process," which is wholly inadequate in a democracy.
It depends to what extent you believe the EU’s remit should be subject to *direct* democratic input.
There are various, totally respectable answers to this and “wholly inadequate” is just your view.
Personally I found Cummings’s influence inside Downing Street much more “wholly inadequate”.
Anyone who believes in democracy should be much more exercised in affairs closer to home.
No, it depends upon whether you believe lawmaking should be subject to democratic input.
If the EU didn't have lawmaking powers, then it wouldn't be an issue. Cummings didn't have lawmaking powers, Parliament does, the EU does, SPADs don't.
Considering how they actually formally announced this one with the impression of being prepared, it would be quite the cock up for it to still degenerate into a rout. Fingers crossed
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
There are two separate arguments here. My argument earlier today was about the fact that the protestors were actually driving people away from the cause rather than gaining support for it. I don't think breaking the law during protests is always unacceptable so long as no one is physically hurt (nor stuff damaged) and the legal authorities act in accordance with the law and treat the protestors accordingly. But what they are doing is clearly counterproductive.
My argument with the hypocrite Gardenwalker is that he jumped in and excused the apparent death of someone as a result of the actions of the protestors in Germany. I am glad it is being said that this was not actually the case but that does not forgive Gardenwalker excusing the death because of the righteousness of the cause of the protestors.
I don’t excuse an apparent death. I merely noted a larger context and wondered why it didn’t exercise the same umbrage.
Just another example of you concluding that one plus one equal bananas.
You excused it. Stop squirming now you have been called out.
If Sunak is an elected PM then why didn't Nadine get her turn with the same mandate?
Maybe Mad Nad would be good because she'd expend all her time, energy and cultural capital on irrelevant culture wars shit and putting up Johnson statues rather than madly pressing buttons on the economic fruity trying to get all 7s.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
Come now, where is your piratical spirit?
Nobody can stop people breaking the law. The most the state can do is say that there are unpleasant consequences for breaking the law. (This isn't a cheap point- think how many populist headlines depend on getting that point wrong.)
And those consequences can only go so far. The state can only apply them if they can persuade a jury to convict. Which depends in part on what the jury think of the law and the likely punishment.
The piratical spirit goes with what I said. If people choose to break the law, then they do so knowing that they can face the consequences of that choice, but are prepared to do so.
A pirate doesn't think "I'll break the law, but I'm a pirate, so I can break the law in full sight of the police/navy/whatever and get away with it". They do what they're prepared to do, knowing its risky, knowing it could have blowback.
If someone is prepared to spend time in prison for their cause, then respect to them for that. If someone thinks they have a good cause so therefore the law doesn't apply to them, then that's not on. The law applies to everybody or nobody.
My vote is for nobody. Sheer anarchy baby, survival of the fittest.
(I'm not the fittest, but I believe I would make a good underling if someone is in the market for one in the post apocalypse).
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
I’m not sure I agree with them. It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
A defining challenge of our era that we are tackling head on. Did you imagine 10 years ago that there would be days where most of our electricity comes from renewable sources? The issue I have with extinction rebellion and the rest is that they act as if nothing is being done. The reality is far from it.
No, I didn’t. It’s great, isn’t it? I tend to be a techno-optimist about this stuff, but others will not doubt tell me I am living in denial.
Yes, it is great, and the protesters don’t reflect reality. I’m sorry if that makes me a gammon, but it’s what I think.
Well look, at least you admit it. And that is the first step to recovery.
Recovery? Like it’s an illness? Not really fair. People disagree about stuff. No need to be abusive ( I accept I niggled about the overseas voting first😀). I generally think I’m fairly liberal, right thinking person. I want a world we’re we have reached sustainable lives for all, not just the rich west. But I’m also a realist, something the nutters are not. Whoops, called them nutters. Sadly, I think many of them have serious mental issues. They may say the same about me.
I am sure many have mental issues. For sure they are scruffy and annoying. But this in itself does not invalidate their cause or even their strategy.
Though yes a younger more centrist candidate like Biden's Transport Secretary and 2020 candidate Buttigieg would be the Democrats best bet. Especially if De Santis beats Trump for the GOP nomination, as in 2020 a lot of Biden votes were anti Trump rather than for him
Although I noted your post yesterday saying that 30% of the electorate, inc many Dems and Independents, wouldn't vote for a gay president?
People say all kinds of things to pollsters that they don't follow through with when they actually vote.
Yep. But I'd have thought this would skew the other way and make it worse - ie more people would say they're cool with a gay prez when they aren't than would say they aren't when they are.
That seems a surprisingly high proportion of the electorate but then again we must always remind ourselves that America is a much more religious society than the UK.
We have a higher percentage of Muslims than the US though and many of them would not vote for a gay PM
Also a lot more in the C of E (merely being 'in the Anglican Communion' doesn't count as different A churches have different policies anyway). And you're always going on about how outrageous it would be for the C of E to be made to follow the law of the land and marry gay couples.
To be precise the law of the land is that CoE clergy cannot marry gay couples. It is enshrined in statute.
The law of the English land is that gay couples can be married. Full stop. That the C of E has a letout is an abominable outrage, given the special privileges which it possesses.
Do other churches/religious groups not have the same opt out? Or are you saying that doesn't really matter because they are not 'official' religions.
We're told that the importance of the C of E is that anyone in England can get married in the parish church (if nominally Xtian, presumably). Because it is established yadda yadda. Unless you are gay ...
The question is wehther the other religious groups have the same automatic right to be considered to 'marry' people, sure. But they are not the ideological arm of the state.
The Church of England is just the established church, not an arm of the state as such.
However given the Bishop of Oxford, one of the most senior diocesan Bishops in the C of E now backs gay marriages in churches where Church of England vicars are willing to do so I expect it will happen in the next few years anyway.
Even if a few evangelicals leave for Pentecostal or Baptist churches, or Anglo Catholics for Rome as some did over women priests
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
That is not the situation now, and not the situation which has been ever since gat marriage was law of the land in England - unless of course youj wanted to get married in the established state church of England. Gays are very definitely inferior beings in your world. And though that is not your failt, you are far too happy to accept it.
Read the Old Testament or Koran and gays are definitely inferior beings too there. Hence no prospect of most Muslim mosques or Orthodox Rabbis in Synagogues or conservative Roman Catholic or Orthodox or charismatic evangelical churches holding gay weddings anytime soon.
However Jesus himself never said anything against homosexual unions so as I said in a few years the C of E will most likely join the Lutheran, Methodist, Church of Scotland and Church in Wales, SEP and Church of Scotland and US Episcopal church and allow it too as those are the churches generally on the more liberal wing of Christianity now
I arrived at Nice airport at the same time as a large aircraft that had arrived from Monastir. Getting through Nice airport used to be only limited by the speed you could walk. To day with non EU passports we were in a holding pen with hundreds of Tunisians who needed to have their possports checked and checked thoroughly. If we haven't caught Covid we've been lucky.
Could one of you fucking thick Brexiteers explain in whose interest it is that real people have to wait for hours in a pointless queue so you can can pleasure yourselves with shiny Non EU black passports?
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
There are two separate arguments here. My argument earlier today was about the fact that the protestors were actually driving people away from the cause rather than gaining support for it. I don't think breaking the law during protests is always unacceptable so long as no one is physically hurt (nor stuff damaged) and the legal authorities act in accordance with the law and treat the protestors accordingly. But what they are doing is clearly counterproductive.
My argument with the hypocrite Gardenwalker is that he jumped in and excused the apparent death of someone as a result of the actions of the protestors in Germany. I am glad it is being said that this was not actually the case but that does not forgive Gardenwalker excusing the death because of the righteousness of the cause of the protestors.
I don’t excuse an apparent death. I merely noted a larger context and wondered why it didn’t exercise the same umbrage.
Just another example of you concluding that one plus one equal bananas.
You excused it. Stop squirming now you have been called out.
My post said “what about…”, not “this doesn’t matter because”.
This is not the first time you’ve attempted to mischaracterise me, though I genuinely think it is because you have comprehension issues rather than bad faith.
I arrived at Nice airport at the same time as a large aircraft that had arrived from Monastir. Getting through Nice airport used to be only limited by the speed you could walk. To day with non EU passports we were in a holding pen with hundreds of Tunisians who needed to have their possports checked and checked thoroughly. If we haven't caught Covid we've been lucky.
Could one of you fucking thick Brexiteers explain in whose interest it is that real people have to wait for hours in a pointless queue so you can can pleasure yourselves with shiny Non EU black passports?
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
I’m not sure I agree with them. It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
A defining challenge of our era that we are tackling head on. Did you imagine 10 years ago that there would be days where most of our electricity comes from renewable sources? The issue I have with extinction rebellion and the rest is that they act as if nothing is being done. The reality is far from it.
No, I didn’t. It’s great, isn’t it? I tend to be a techno-optimist about this stuff, but others will not doubt tell me I am living in denial.
Yes, it is great, and the protesters don’t reflect reality. I’m sorry if that makes me a gammon, but it’s what I think.
Well look, at least you admit it. And that is the first step to recovery.
Recovery? Like it’s an illness? Not really fair. People disagree about stuff. No need to be abusive ( I accept I niggled about the overseas voting first😀). I generally think I’m fairly liberal, right thinking person. I want a world we’re we have reached sustainable lives for all, not just the rich west. But I’m also a realist, something the nutters are not. Whoops, called them nutters. Sadly, I think many of them have serious mental issues. They may say the same about me.
I am sure many have mental issues. For sure they are scruffy and annoying. But this in itself does not invalidate their cause or even their strategy.
But what is their cause? “Just stop oil”? Right now? No more cars, plastics, trains (diesels), medicines that are derived from oil, fertilisers. What do they actually want? Shoot 9 in 10 people - it’ll be kinder in the long run? Can you enlighten me on what they want governments to actually do, today, tomorrow, the next day? It’s not clear, or indeed possible.
Though yes a younger more centrist candidate like Biden's Transport Secretary and 2020 candidate Buttigieg would be the Democrats best bet. Especially if De Santis beats Trump for the GOP nomination, as in 2020 a lot of Biden votes were anti Trump rather than for him
Although I noted your post yesterday saying that 30% of the electorate, inc many Dems and Independents, wouldn't vote for a gay president?
People say all kinds of things to pollsters that they don't follow through with when they actually vote.
Yep. But I'd have thought this would skew the other way and make it worse - ie more people would say they're cool with a gay prez when they aren't than would say they aren't when they are.
That seems a surprisingly high proportion of the electorate but then again we must always remind ourselves that America is a much more religious society than the UK.
We have a higher percentage of Muslims than the US though and many of them would not vote for a gay PM
Also a lot more in the C of E (merely being 'in the Anglican Communion' doesn't count as different A churches have different policies anyway). And you're always going on about how outrageous it would be for the C of E to be made to follow the law of the land and marry gay couples.
To be precise the law of the land is that CoE clergy cannot marry gay couples. It is enshrined in statute.
The law of the English land is that gay couples can be married. Full stop. That the C of E has a letout is an abominable outrage, given the special privileges which it possesses.
Do other churches/religious groups not have the same opt out? Or are you saying that doesn't really matter because they are not 'official' religions.
We're told that the importance of the C of E is that anyone in England can get married in the parish church (if nominally Xtian, presumably). Because it is established yadda yadda. Unless you are gay ...
The question is wehther the other religious groups have the same automatic right to be considered to 'marry' people, sure. But they are not the ideological arm of the state.
The Church of England is just the established church, not an arm of the state as such.
However given the Bishop of Oxford, one of the most senior diocesan Bishops in the C of E now backs gay marriages in churches where Church of England vicars are willing to do so I expect it will happen in the next few years anyway.
Even if a few evangelicals leave for Pentecostal or Baptist churches, or Anglo Catholics for Rome as some did over women priests
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
That is not the situation now, and not the situation which has been ever since gat marriage was law of the land in England - unless of course youj wanted to get married in the established state church of England. Gays are very definitely inferior beings in your world. And though that is not your failt, you are far too happy to accept it.
Read the Old Testament or Koran and gays are definitely inferior beings too there. Hence no prospect of most Muslim mosques or Orthodox Rabbis in Synagogues or conservative Roman Catholic or Orthodox or charismatic evangelical churches holding gay weddings anytime soon.
However Jesus himself never said anything against homosexual unions so as I said in a few years the C of E will most likely join the Lutheran, Methodist, Church of Scotland and Church in Wales, SEP and Church of Scotland and US Episcopal church and allow it too as those are the churches generally on the more liberal wing of Christianity now
Does the Bible say anything about Democracy?
There's a lot of detail in the new testament about where you should put your cross.
I arrived at Nice airport at the same time as a large aircraft that had arrived from Monastir. Getting through Nice airport used to be only limited by the speed you could walk. To day with non EU passports we were in a holding pen with hundreds of Tunisians who needed to have their possports checked and checked thoroughly. If we haven't caught Covid we've been lucky.
Could one of you fucking thick Brexiteers explain in whose interest it is that real people have to wait for hours in a pointless queue so you can can pleasure yourselves with shiny Non EU black passports?
But also: you have a house in Villefranche and have lived there - on and off - many years. Are you really so dim that you did not thereby apply for French Residency pre-Brexit, thus avoiding all this? You had about 5 years warning, or more
I mean, JFC. You have a reputation for a low-watt IQ but that is quite special
Though yes a younger more centrist candidate like Biden's Transport Secretary and 2020 candidate Buttigieg would be the Democrats best bet. Especially if De Santis beats Trump for the GOP nomination, as in 2020 a lot of Biden votes were anti Trump rather than for him
Although I noted your post yesterday saying that 30% of the electorate, inc many Dems and Independents, wouldn't vote for a gay president?
People say all kinds of things to pollsters that they don't follow through with when they actually vote.
Yep. But I'd have thought this would skew the other way and make it worse - ie more people would say they're cool with a gay prez when they aren't than would say they aren't when they are.
That seems a surprisingly high proportion of the electorate but then again we must always remind ourselves that America is a much more religious society than the UK.
We have a higher percentage of Muslims than the US though and many of them would not vote for a gay PM
Also a lot more in the C of E (merely being 'in the Anglican Communion' doesn't count as different A churches have different policies anyway). And you're always going on about how outrageous it would be for the C of E to be made to follow the law of the land and marry gay couples.
To be precise the law of the land is that CoE clergy cannot marry gay couples. It is enshrined in statute.
The law of the English land is that gay couples can be married. Full stop. That the C of E has a letout is an abominable outrage, given the special privileges which it possesses.
Do other churches/religious groups not have the same opt out? Or are you saying that doesn't really matter because they are not 'official' religions.
We're told that the importance of the C of E is that anyone in England can get married in the parish church (if nominally Xtian, presumably). Because it is established yadda yadda. Unless you are gay ...
The question is wehther the other religious groups have the same automatic right to be considered to 'marry' people, sure. But they are not the ideological arm of the state.
The Church of England is just the established church, not an arm of the state as such.
However given the Bishop of Oxford, one of the most senior diocesan Bishops in the C of E now backs gay marriages in churches where Church of England vicars are willing to do so I expect it will happen in the next few years anyway.
Even if a few evangelicals leave for Pentecostal or Baptist churches, or Anglo Catholics for Rome as some did over women priests
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
That is not the situation now, and not the situation which has been ever since gat marriage was law of the land in England - unless of course youj wanted to get married in the established state church of England. Gays are very definitely inferior beings in your world. And though that is not your failt, you are far too happy to accept it.
Read the Old Testament or Koran and gays are definitely inferior beings too there. Hence no prospect of most Muslim mosques or Orthodox Rabbis in Synagogues or conservative Roman Catholic or Orthodox or charismatic evangelical churches holding gay weddings anytime soon.
However Jesus himself never said anything against homosexual unions so as I said in a few years the C of E will most likely join the Lutheran, Methodist, Church of Scotland and Church in Wales, SEP and Church of Scotland and US Episcopal church and allow it too as those are the churches generally on the more liberal wing of Christianity now
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
I’m not sure I agree with them. It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
A defining challenge of our era that we are tackling head on. Did you imagine 10 years ago that there would be days where most of our electricity comes from renewable sources? The issue I have with extinction rebellion and the rest is that they act as if nothing is being done. The reality is far from it.
No, I didn’t. It’s great, isn’t it? I tend to be a techno-optimist about this stuff, but others will not doubt tell me I am living in denial.
Yes, it is great, and the protesters don’t reflect reality. I’m sorry if that makes me a gammon, but it’s what I think.
Well look, at least you admit it. And that is the first step to recovery.
Recovery? Like it’s an illness? Not really fair. People disagree about stuff. No need to be abusive ( I accept I niggled about the overseas voting first😀). I generally think I’m fairly liberal, right thinking person. I want a world we’re we have reached sustainable lives for all, not just the rich west. But I’m also a realist, something the nutters are not. Whoops, called them nutters. Sadly, I think many of them have serious mental issues. They may say the same about me.
I am sure many have mental issues. For sure they are scruffy and annoying. But this in itself does not invalidate their cause or even their strategy.
Not in itself, but being scruffy and annoying could harm a strategy. No different to how political parties generally don't put obvious loonies in up front positions, they choose those who present better (yes, the one's we get are the better ones).
I arrived at Nice airport at the same time as a large aircraft that had arrived from Monastir. Getting through Nice airport used to be only limited by the speed you could walk. To day with non EU passports we were in a holding pen with hundreds of Tunisians who needed to have their possports checked and checked thoroughly. If we haven't caught Covid we've been lucky.
Could one of you fucking thick Brexiteers explain in whose interest it is that real people have to wait for hours in a pointless queue so you can can pleasure yourselves with shiny Non EU black passports?
But also: you have a house in Villefranche and have lived there - on and off - many years. Are you really so dim that you did not thereby apply for French Residency pre-Brexit, thus avoiding all this? You had about 5 years warning, or more
I mean, JFC. You have a reputation for a low-watt IQ but that is quite special
To be fair to Roger (despite his implication Tunisians aren't real people) residency rather than citizenship would not help: he would queue in the same line but with his British passport and french residency card.
Though yes a younger more centrist candidate like Biden's Transport Secretary and 2020 candidate Buttigieg would be the Democrats best bet. Especially if De Santis beats Trump for the GOP nomination, as in 2020 a lot of Biden votes were anti Trump rather than for him
Although I noted your post yesterday saying that 30% of the electorate, inc many Dems and Independents, wouldn't vote for a gay president?
People say all kinds of things to pollsters that they don't follow through with when they actually vote.
Yep. But I'd have thought this would skew the other way and make it worse - ie more people would say they're cool with a gay prez when they aren't than would say they aren't when they are.
That seems a surprisingly high proportion of the electorate but then again we must always remind ourselves that America is a much more religious society than the UK.
We have a higher percentage of Muslims than the US though and many of them would not vote for a gay PM
Also a lot more in the C of E (merely being 'in the Anglican Communion' doesn't count as different A churches have different policies anyway). And you're always going on about how outrageous it would be for the C of E to be made to follow the law of the land and marry gay couples.
To be precise the law of the land is that CoE clergy cannot marry gay couples. It is enshrined in statute.
The law of the English land is that gay couples can be married. Full stop. That the C of E has a letout is an abominable outrage, given the special privileges which it possesses.
Do other churches/religious groups not have the same opt out? Or are you saying that doesn't really matter because they are not 'official' religions.
We're told that the importance of the C of E is that anyone in England can get married in the parish church (if nominally Xtian, presumably). Because it is established yadda yadda. Unless you are gay ...
The question is wehther the other religious groups have the same automatic right to be considered to 'marry' people, sure. But they are not the ideological arm of the state.
The Church of England is just the established church, not an arm of the state as such.
However given the Bishop of Oxford, one of the most senior diocesan Bishops in the C of E now backs gay marriages in churches where Church of England vicars are willing to do so I expect it will happen in the next few years anyway.
Even if a few evangelicals leave for Pentecostal or Baptist churches, or Anglo Catholics for Rome as some did over women priests
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
That is not the situation now, and not the situation which has been ever since gat marriage was law of the land in England - unless of course youj wanted to get married in the established state church of England. Gays are very definitely inferior beings in your world. And though that is not your failt, you are far too happy to accept it.
Read the Old Testament or Koran and gays are definitely inferior beings too there. Hence no prospect of most Muslim mosques or Orthodox Rabbis in Synagogues or conservative Roman Catholic or Orthodox or charismatic evangelical churches holding gay weddings anytime soon.
However Jesus himself never said anything against homosexual unions so as I said in a few years the C of E will most likely join the Lutheran, Methodist, Church of Scotland and Church in Wales, SEP and Church of Scotland and US Episcopal church and allow it too as those are the churches generally on the more liberal wing of Christianity now
Does the Bible say anything about Democracy?
Romans 14:1 ESV / 14 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
Numbers 16:1-50 ESV / 8 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. And they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, 250 chiefs of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men. They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” When Moses heard it, he fell on his face, and he said to Korah and all his company, “In the morning the Lord will show who is his, and who is holy, and will bring him near to him. The one whom he chooses he will bring near to him. .
Exodus 18:17-26 ESV / 8 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful Moses' father-in-law said to him, “What you are doing is not good. You and the people with you will certainly wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you. You are not able to do it alone. Now obey my voice; I will give you advice, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God and bring their cases to God, and you shall warn them about the statutes and the laws, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. ...
1 Peter 2:13-17 ESV / 83 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Deuteronomy 1:13 ESV / 64 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.
Acts 5:29 ESV / 62 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men"
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
That's not the choice at all. Here it is: You vote for a government which is a member of the European Council and the Council of the EU. Through the first, your PM nominates the European Commission; through the second, your ministers vote on the draft laws from the Commission. Your government appoints the leaders of the other institutions through the Councils. The one exception is the Parliament, where you vote for MEPs who can independently veto the draft laws from the Commission. So there is your democracy and your civil service. Some of these steps could be removed, if governments would cede national sovereignty over the EU; they don't want to.
I'd simply refer you to Bart's point downthread.
When it comes to lawmaking, the process you describe simply isn't robust enough. We are back to "you vote for a government that appoints someone who influences the process," which is wholly inadequate in a democracy.
It depends to what extent you believe the EU’s remit should be subject to *direct* democratic input.
There are various, totally respectable answers to this and “wholly inadequate” is just your view.
Personally I found Cummings’s influence inside Downing Street much more “wholly inadequate”.
Anyone who believes in democracy should be much more exercised in affairs closer to home.
No, it depends upon whether you believe lawmaking should be subject to democratic input.
If the EU didn't have lawmaking powers, then it wouldn't be an issue. Cummings didn't have lawmaking powers, Parliament does, the EU does, SPADs don't.
It depends on one’s view on the reach and remit of those laws.
I was relatively (but not completely) happy with status quo ante.
I arrived at Nice airport at the same time as a large aircraft that had arrived from Monastir. Getting through Nice airport used to be only limited by the speed you could walk. To day with non EU passports we were in a holding pen with hundreds of Tunisians who needed to have their possports checked and checked thoroughly. If we haven't caught Covid we've been lucky.
Could one of you fucking thick Brexiteers explain in whose interest it is that real people have to wait for hours in a pointless queue so you can can pleasure yourselves with shiny Non EU black passports?
I arrived at Nice airport at the same time as a large aircraft that had arrived from Monastir. Getting through Nice airport used to be only limited by the speed you could walk. To day with non EU passports we were in a holding pen with hundreds of Tunisians who needed to have their possports checked and checked thoroughly. If we haven't caught Covid we've been lucky.
Could one of you fucking thick Brexiteers explain in whose interest it is that real people have to wait for hours in a pointless queue so you can can pleasure yourselves with shiny Non EU black passports?
Lol. The thought of Sir Roger de Provence having to muck in with Tunisians in an airport has cheered me up so much I almost regret voting Remain!
I arrived at Nice airport at the same time as a large aircraft that had arrived from Monastir. Getting through Nice airport used to be only limited by the speed you could walk. To day with non EU passports we were in a holding pen with hundreds of Tunisians who needed to have their possports checked and checked thoroughly. If we haven't caught Covid we've been lucky.
Could one of you fucking thick Brexiteers explain in whose interest it is that real people have to wait for hours in a pointless queue so you can can pleasure yourselves with shiny Non EU black passports?
But also: you have a house in Villefranche and have lived there - on and off - many years. Are you really so dim that you did not thereby apply for French Residency pre-Brexit, thus avoiding all this? You had about 5 years warning, or more
I mean, JFC. You have a reputation for a low-watt IQ but that is quite special
To be fair to Roger (despite his implication Tunisians aren't real people) residency rather than citizenship would not help: he would queue in the same line but with his British passport and french residency card.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
I’m not sure I agree with them. It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
A defining challenge of our era that we are tackling head on. Did you imagine 10 years ago that there would be days where most of our electricity comes from renewable sources? The issue I have with extinction rebellion and the rest is that they act as if nothing is being done. The reality is far from it.
No, I didn’t. It’s great, isn’t it? I tend to be a techno-optimist about this stuff, but others will not doubt tell me I am living in denial.
Yes, it is great, and the protesters don’t reflect reality. I’m sorry if that makes me a gammon, but it’s what I think.
Well look, at least you admit it. And that is the first step to recovery.
Recovery? Like it’s an illness? Not really fair. People disagree about stuff. No need to be abusive ( I accept I niggled about the overseas voting first😀). I generally think I’m fairly liberal, right thinking person. I want a world we’re we have reached sustainable lives for all, not just the rich west. But I’m also a realist, something the nutters are not. Whoops, called them nutters. Sadly, I think many of them have serious mental issues. They may say the same about me.
I am sure many have mental issues. For sure they are scruffy and annoying. But this in itself does not invalidate their cause or even their strategy.
But what is their cause? “Just stop oil”? Right now? No more cars, plastics, trains (diesels), medicines that are derived from oil, fertilisers. What do they actually want? Shoot 9 in 10 people - it’ll be kinder in the long run? Can you enlighten me on what they want governments to actually do, today, tomorrow, the next day? It’s not clear, or indeed possible.
According to Wikipedia, “Extinction Rebellion (abbreviated as XR) is a global environmental movement,[7][8] with the stated aim of using nonviolent civil disobedience to compel government action to avoid tipping points in the climate system, biodiversity loss, and the risk of social and ecological collapse.”
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
That's not the choice at all. Here it is: You vote for a government which is a member of the European Council and the Council of the EU. Through the first, your PM nominates the European Commission; through the second, your ministers vote on the draft laws from the Commission. Your government appoints the leaders of the other institutions through the Councils. The one exception is the Parliament, where you vote for MEPs who can independently veto the draft laws from the Commission. So there is your democracy and your civil service. Some of these steps could be removed, if governments would cede national sovereignty over the EU; they don't want to.
I'd simply refer you to Bart's point downthread.
When it comes to lawmaking, the process you describe simply isn't robust enough. We are back to "you vote for a government that appoints someone who influences the process," which is wholly inadequate in a democracy.
It depends to what extent you believe the EU’s remit should be subject to *direct* democratic input.
There are various, totally respectable answers to this and “wholly inadequate” is just your view.
Personally I found Cummings’s influence inside Downing Street much more “wholly inadequate”.
Anyone who believes in democracy should be much more exercised in affairs closer to home.
No, it depends upon whether you believe lawmaking should be subject to democratic input.
If the EU didn't have lawmaking powers, then it wouldn't be an issue. Cummings didn't have lawmaking powers, Parliament does, the EU does, SPADs don't.
It depends on one’s view on the reach and remit of those laws.
I was relatively (but not completely) happy with status quo ante.
Because you didn't prioritise democratic accountability.
You have the right to that opinion. I have a right to have other priorities. But lets not pretend that UVDL is elected in the same way as Macron and Sunak are, its just disingenuous. Say it doesn't matter, that's fair enough.
Its like how some come here and say Covid wasn't real, that's disingenuous. I say it was real, but it doesn't matter, that's a difference of opinion/priorities.
If there is ever a serious campaign to Rejoin (I doubt this) someone should compile the COLLECTED PB COMMENTS OF SIR ROGER DE PROVENCE, and email them to every voter in the UK
Considering how they actually formally announced this one with the impression of being prepared, it would be quite the cock up for it to still degenerate into a rout. Fingers crossed
Just as a casual thought, who would die if the Ukrainians hit the dam now?
I'm sure the answer is probably too many civilian Khersonites, but if the Russians are likely to hit it anyway, there is some sense in it happening at a time of Ukraine's choosing, preferably around a counter evacuation.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
That's not the choice at all. Here it is: You vote for a government which is a member of the European Council and the Council of the EU. Through the first, your PM nominates the European Commission; through the second, your ministers vote on the draft laws from the Commission. Your government appoints the leaders of the other institutions through the Councils. The one exception is the Parliament, where you vote for MEPs who can independently veto the draft laws from the Commission. So there is your democracy and your civil service. Some of these steps could be removed, if governments would cede national sovereignty over the EU; they don't want to.
I'd simply refer you to Bart's point downthread.
When it comes to lawmaking, the process you describe simply isn't robust enough. We are back to "you vote for a government that appoints someone who influences the process," which is wholly inadequate in a democracy.
It depends to what extent you believe the EU’s remit should be subject to *direct* democratic input.
There are various, totally respectable answers to this and “wholly inadequate” is just your view.
Personally I found Cummings’s influence inside Downing Street much more “wholly inadequate”.
Anyone who believes in democracy should be much more exercised in affairs closer to home.
No, it depends upon whether you believe lawmaking should be subject to democratic input.
If the EU didn't have lawmaking powers, then it wouldn't be an issue. Cummings didn't have lawmaking powers, Parliament does, the EU does, SPADs don't.
It depends on one’s view on the reach and remit of those laws.
I was relatively (but not completely) happy with status quo ante.
Because you didn't prioritise democratic accountability.
You have the right to that opinion. I have a right to have other priorities. But lets not pretend that UVDL is elected in the same way as Macron and Sunak are, its just disingenuous. Say it doesn't matter, that's fair enough.
Its like how some come here and say Covid wasn't real, that's disingenuous. I say it was real, but it doesn't matter, that's a difference of opinion/priorities.
It’s your view that I didn’t prioritise democratic accountability.
I don’t accept your definitions and in fact I find them at odds with how writers on this subject define them.
As is sadly typical with you, I see you’re attempting to charge me with your own crimes, ie that of conflating various categories of leadership.
Though yes a younger more centrist candidate like Biden's Transport Secretary and 2020 candidate Buttigieg would be the Democrats best bet. Especially if De Santis beats Trump for the GOP nomination, as in 2020 a lot of Biden votes were anti Trump rather than for him
Although I noted your post yesterday saying that 30% of the electorate, inc many Dems and Independents, wouldn't vote for a gay president?
People say all kinds of things to pollsters that they don't follow through with when they actually vote.
Yep. But I'd have thought this would skew the other way and make it worse - ie more people would say they're cool with a gay prez when they aren't than would say they aren't when they are.
That seems a surprisingly high proportion of the electorate but then again we must always remind ourselves that America is a much more religious society than the UK.
We have a higher percentage of Muslims than the US though and many of them would not vote for a gay PM
Also a lot more in the C of E (merely being 'in the Anglican Communion' doesn't count as different A churches have different policies anyway). And you're always going on about how outrageous it would be for the C of E to be made to follow the law of the land and marry gay couples.
To be precise the law of the land is that CoE clergy cannot marry gay couples. It is enshrined in statute.
The law of the English land is that gay couples can be married. Full stop. That the C of E has a letout is an abominable outrage, given the special privileges which it possesses.
Do other churches/religious groups not have the same opt out? Or are you saying that doesn't really matter because they are not 'official' religions.
We're told that the importance of the C of E is that anyone in England can get married in the parish church (if nominally Xtian, presumably). Because it is established yadda yadda. Unless you are gay ...
The question is wehther the other religious groups have the same automatic right to be considered to 'marry' people, sure. But they are not the ideological arm of the state.
The Church of England is just the established church, not an arm of the state as such.
However given the Bishop of Oxford, one of the most senior diocesan Bishops in the C of E now backs gay marriages in churches where Church of England vicars are willing to do so I expect it will happen in the next few years anyway.
Even if a few evangelicals leave for Pentecostal or Baptist churches, or Anglo Catholics for Rome as some did over women priests
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
That is not the situation now, and not the situation which has been ever since gat marriage was law of the land in England - unless of course youj wanted to get married in the established state church of England. Gays are very definitely inferior beings in your world. And though that is not your failt, you are far too happy to accept it.
Read the Old Testament or Koran and gays are definitely inferior beings too there. Hence no prospect of most Muslim mosques or Orthodox Rabbis in Synagogues or conservative Roman Catholic or Orthodox or charismatic evangelical churches holding gay weddings anytime soon.
However Jesus himself never said anything against homosexual unions so as I said in a few years the C of E will most likely join the Lutheran, Methodist, Church of Scotland and Church in Wales, SEP and Church of Scotland and US Episcopal church and allow it too as those are the churches generally on the more liberal wing of Christianity now
Does the Bible say anything about Democracy?
Romans 14:1 ESV / 14 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
Numbers 16:1-50 ESV / 8 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. And they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, 250 chiefs of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men. They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” When Moses heard it, he fell on his face, and he said to Korah and all his company, “In the morning the Lord will show who is his, and who is holy, and will bring him near to him. The one whom he chooses he will bring near to him. .
Exodus 18:17-26 ESV / 8 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful Moses' father-in-law said to him, “What you are doing is not good. You and the people with you will certainly wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you. You are not able to do it alone. Now obey my voice; I will give you advice, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God and bring their cases to God, and you shall warn them about the statutes and the laws, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. ...
1 Peter 2:13-17 ESV / 83 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Deuteronomy 1:13 ESV / 64 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.
Acts 5:29 ESV / 62 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men"
"helpful votes Helpful not Helpful" is brilliantly enigmatic. No wonder it is repeated several times in the bible. The rest of the quotes are a bit meh.
If the Russians simply fold and surrender in Kherson (especially if they lose 5-20K troops) I will be tempted to conclude my worst fears were overly frit. ie: Russia is simply losing, and losing badly (indeed tragically) and has no idea how to respond, and is too scared to do anything with WMD, and is now probably seeking a peaceful way out of a colossal geopolitical disaster
I just watched that video clip in the header. There is no way Biden will stand for re-election. But Trump is waiting, waiting. It's a tough call. Trump is a nasty piece of work and he will boost the fervour of his support among 4chan types just by jeering at Biden after Biden says he won't be standing. I don't think Harris would be a good candidate for the Democrats to put up against Trump.
According to a very quick search, WHO estimates that about 10 million people die each year, worldwide, from air pollution.
And, for what it's worth, WHO estimates that about 8 million die from smoking each year. (Of course individuals have far more control over the second than the first.)
I just watched that video clip in the header. There is no way Biden will stand for re-election. But Trump is waiting, waiting. It's a tough call. Trump is a nasty piece of work and he will boost the fervour of his support among 4chan types just by jeering at Biden after Biden says he won't be standing. I don't think Harris would be a good candidate for the Democrats to put up against Trump.
Buttigieg would certainly challenge Harris for the Democrats nomination if Biden doesn't run.
Trump has to get passed DeSantis first for the GOP nomination
If the Russians simply fold and surrender in Kherson (especially if they lose 5-20K troops) I will be tempted to conclude my worst fears were overly frit. ie: Russia is simply losing, and losing badly (indeed tragically) and has no idea how to respond, and is too scared to do anything with WMD, and is now probably seeking a peaceful way out of a colossal geopolitical disaster
Glad to know you have stopped panicking. I did suggest you were having another one of your omicron moments when the nuclear talk was going around.
If the Russians simply fold and surrender in Kherson (especially if they lose 5-20K troops) I will be tempted to conclude my worst fears were overly frit. ie: Russia is simply losing, and losing badly (indeed tragically) and has no idea how to respond, and is too scared to do anything with WMD, and is now probably seeking a peaceful way out of a colossal geopolitical disaster
Speaking of protests, last Friday afternoon, Tigrayans shut down one direction of the main north-south route through Seattle, I-5. For hours. (I assume they were protesting the recent agreement, which looks like a victory for the Ethiopian national government.)
SeaShantyIrish2 can probably tell you more, since he is closer to that scene.
If the Russians simply fold and surrender in Kherson (especially if they lose 5-20K troops) I will be tempted to conclude my worst fears were overly frit. ie: Russia is simply losing, and losing badly (indeed tragically) and has no idea how to respond, and is too scared to do anything with WMD, and is now probably seeking a peaceful way out of a colossal geopolitical disaster
Regrettably, tales of total collapse do generally appear to be too good to be true, but the Kherson news, be it orderly or not, does feel huge.
I mean, why did Putin incorporate an area under so much threat of being lost? Does he think he can get it back? Was it so if he can muscle his way to a ceasefire he can claim both countries are occupying parts of what the other regards as its territory?
The guy who plays John Major in the Crown is bloody useless.
Generally, the casting of the royals themselves has been excellent.
The Prime Ministers, not so much, with the exception of Lithgow’s Churchill. Anderson’s Thatcher was notable and unforgettable but ultimately an over-the-top caricature.
I arrived at Nice airport at the same time as a large aircraft that had arrived from Monastir. Getting through Nice airport used to be only limited by the speed you could walk. To day with non EU passports we were in a holding pen with hundreds of Tunisians who needed to have their possports checked and checked thoroughly. If we haven't caught Covid we've been lucky.
Could one of you fucking thick Brexiteers explain in whose interest it is that real people have to wait for hours in a pointless queue so you can can pleasure yourselves with shiny Non EU black passports?
But also: you have a house in Villefranche and have lived there - on and off - many years. Are you really so dim that you did not thereby apply for French Residency pre-Brexit, thus avoiding all this? You had about 5 years warning, or more
I mean, JFC. You have a reputation for a low-watt IQ but that is quite special
To be fair to Roger (despite his implication Tunisians aren't real people) residency rather than citizenship would not help: he would queue in the same line but with his British passport and french residency card.
You can naturalise as French citizen after 5 years and get a passport but you need to pass Diplôme d'études en langue française at B1 level to demonstrate language proficiency. Not hard, but you'd have to work at it.
I've recently acquired the paperback versions of Andrew Teale's by-election previews (sadly they do not come with images). The 2020 is amusing with how brief it is, for obvious reasons, as compared to the very chunky 2021. https://twitter.com/andrewteale/status/1547568317556133893/photo/1
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
I’m not sure I agree with them. It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
A defining challenge of our era that we are tackling head on. Did you imagine 10 years ago that there would be days where most of our electricity comes from renewable sources? The issue I have with extinction rebellion and the rest is that they act as if nothing is being done. The reality is far from it.
No, I didn’t. It’s great, isn’t it? I tend to be a techno-optimist about this stuff, but others will not doubt tell me I am living in denial.
Yes, it is great, and the protesters don’t reflect reality. I’m sorry if that makes me a gammon, but it’s what I think.
Well look, at least you admit it. And that is the first step to recovery.
Recovery? Like it’s an illness? Not really fair. People disagree about stuff. No need to be abusive ( I accept I niggled about the overseas voting first😀). I generally think I’m fairly liberal, right thinking person. I want a world we’re we have reached sustainable lives for all, not just the rich west. But I’m also a realist, something the nutters are not. Whoops, called them nutters. Sadly, I think many of them have serious mental issues. They may say the same about me.
I am sure many have mental issues. For sure they are scruffy and annoying. But this in itself does not invalidate their cause or even their strategy.
But what is their cause? “Just stop oil”? Right now? No more cars, plastics, trains (diesels), medicines that are derived from oil, fertilisers. What do they actually want? Shoot 9 in 10 people - it’ll be kinder in the long run? Can you enlighten me on what they want governments to actually do, today, tomorrow, the next day? It’s not clear, or indeed possible.
Shooting releases harmful gases due to the rapid oxidation of the gunpowder. It is more environment friendly for "the nine" (as we call those who will be left behind) to commit suicide by allowing a wild animal to eat them.
Considering how they actually formally announced this one with the impression of being prepared, it would be quite the cock up for it to still degenerate into a rout. Fingers crossed
Just as a casual thought, who would die if the Ukrainians hit the dam now?
I'm sure the answer is probably too many civilian Khersonites, but if the Russians are likely to hit it anyway, there is some sense in it happening at a time of Ukraine's choosing, preferably around a counter evacuation.
I arrived at Nice airport at the same time as a large aircraft that had arrived from Monastir. Getting through Nice airport used to be only limited by the speed you could walk. To day with non EU passports we were in a holding pen with hundreds of Tunisians who needed to have their possports checked and checked thoroughly. If we haven't caught Covid we've been lucky.
Could one of you fucking thick Brexiteers explain in whose interest it is that real people have to wait for hours in a pointless queue so you can can pleasure yourselves with shiny Non EU black passports?
But also: you have a house in Villefranche and have lived there - on and off - many years. Are you really so dim that you did not thereby apply for French Residency pre-Brexit, thus avoiding all this? You had about 5 years warning, or more
I mean, JFC. You have a reputation for a low-watt IQ but that is quite special
To be fair to Roger (despite his implication Tunisians aren't real people) residency rather than citizenship would not help: he would queue in the same line but with his British passport and french residency card.
You can natularise as French citizen after 5 years and get a passport but you need to pass Diplôme d'études en langue française at B1 level to demonstrate language proficiency. Not hard, but you'd have to work at it.
Perhaps they should do something similar for the UK, but ramped right up to reflect that most have some general fluency in English.
How do you properly contract a “halfpenny’s worth”?
The guy who plays John Major in the Crown is bloody useless.
Generally, the casting of the royals themselves has been excellent.
The Prime Ministers, not so much, with the exception of Lithgow’s Churchill. Anderson’s Thatcher was notable and unforgettable but ultimately an over-the-top caricature.
Watched the first episode and thought he played the part OK. Certainly a change from his previous roles like Sick Boy in Trainspotting
The guy who plays John Major in the Crown is bloody useless.
Generally, the casting of the royals themselves has been excellent.
The Prime Ministers, not so much, with the exception of Lithgow’s Churchill. Anderson’s Thatcher was notable and unforgettable but ultimately an over-the-top caricature.
Watched the first episode and thought he played the part OK. Certainly a change from his previous roles like Sick Boy in Trainspotting
The doctor who treated the cyclist said the traffic jam didn't affect the attempt to save the cyclist's life.
Personally I think this kind of protest can be counterproductive, and clearly blocking roads is going to disrupt traffic, including emergency vehicles. But in general there are loads of things which cause traffic jams and I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of traffic jams in Germany aren't caused by climate protesters. I find it manipulative in this case to say climate nutters claimed their first life, when it looks more like the cyclist was killed by a lorry driver.
If the Russians simply fold and surrender in Kherson (especially if they lose 5-20K troops) I will be tempted to conclude my worst fears were overly frit. ie: Russia is simply losing, and losing badly (indeed tragically) and has no idea how to respond, and is too scared to do anything with WMD, and is now probably seeking a peaceful way out of a colossal geopolitical disaster
Regrettably, tales of total collapse do generally appear to be too good to be true, but the Kherson news, be it orderly or not, does feel huge.
I mean, why did Putin incorporate an area under so much threat of being lost? Does he think he can get it back? Was it so if he can muscle his way to a ceasefire he can claim both countries are occupying parts of what the other regards as its territory?
Being audacious and psyching everyone into accepting a fait accompli has always worked for him in the past.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
I am not unhappy to see the law broken. Rosa Parks broke a law perhaps when she refused to get to the back of the bus.
I expect though to see lawbreaking addressed by the police (proportionately).
My issue is that people are much more worked up about Miss Arabella Fannyfeathers et al and not about the terrifying effects of climate change already around us and disproportionately affecting third world countries.
I can’t control the weather. I can choose to protest in a way that doesn’t endanger lives, cause people to miss funerals, births and dying parents. I get the argument. I just think they are not realistic.
When I was young, the protests we got where the National Front marching. Or, worse, IRA bombs going off, and we now have Sinn Fein sharing power in the NI Assembly. These climate protests are such small fry in comparison. I don’t get the ire that they generate in some.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Pope?
Errr, no, the Head of Government chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury, which matches the way VDL and Michel are chosen.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Prime Minister.
Errr, no, the Prime Minister is an elected Member of Parliament that is then chosen in a method determined by his or her peers of other elected Members of Parliament.
Well, if the PM's position is so unassailably democratic, so is his choice of archbishop, surely? Your starting point is little England good, big Europe bad, and this has really nothing to do with democracy.
The EU is run by its "House of Lords"
By which you mean the elected national governments, some imperfectly democratic of course.
No. Appointees are not elected.
Not getting this whole democracy lark, are you?
Nor are you. If you actually cared from first principles upward about democracy, you would notice that you live in a first past the post elective oligarchy with one chamber a mix of appointees and hereditaries which has almost no democratic credentials at all. You never breathe a word about it; it is pure my country right or wrong, rarara, just like HYUFD defending nonsense about IHT on purely tribal grounds.
We do have parts of our system where there is very little democratic accountability. I'm not too bothered about the HOL, but the Bank of England and who they are accountable to for their decisions is a bigger concern. However, let's not pretend we have anything like the issues of the European Union, with the key roles appointed by political backslapping.
Right, so your objection is that there should be a democracy but it shouldn't have politics?
That's one of the niggles that makes it hard for the UK to work out its post-Brexit relationship with most of the rest of Europe. One one hand, the UK doesn't want to be involved in the politics. On the other, it definitely doesn't want to be accepting decisions where it hasn't had democratic input.
Speaking personally, if we are forced to change something because our far larger neighbours have changed it and it's sensible to follow suit, I have far less issue with that than if we are forced to change something but this change has the shiny gloss of being something the 'we had democratic input' in.
Considering how they actually formally announced this one with the impression of being prepared, it would be quite the cock up for it to still degenerate into a rout. Fingers crossed
Yet, indications are that they have cocked it up.
AFU artillery hit a Russian column close to the Antonivsky bridge in Antonivka. Destroying personnel and equipment. Artillery barrages keep going for the last 2-3 hours now constantly.
Ukrainian war correspondent Yuri Butusov says Kherson is within range of Ukrainian field artillery; Ukrainians are less than 18km from the city. Russian river crossings/nearby staging areas being hit.
Comments
When it comes to lawmaking, the process you describe simply isn't robust enough. We are back to "you vote for a government that appoints someone who influences the process," which is wholly inadequate in a democracy.
This is a normally quite calm commentator on the situation in Ukraine.
It's HAPPENING!!!
YEAAAAAHH!!!
Ukrainian artillery is hitting all russian Dnipro crossings with annihilation fires - ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RIVER!!
YEAAAAAHH!!!
https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1590834890492514306
Also, these:
Some russian military channels are currently posting that russia could lose 5k - 20k troops trapped in Kherson
🍉
https://twitter.com/saintjavelin/status/1590835099922468867
Pro-Russian Dimitriyev says that according to his sources, there's an actual panic among Russian forces in Kherson.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1590835709610713088
There's currently every indication the Russian "withdrawal" from the west bank of the Dnipro has degenerated into a rout. We'll only know for sure at daybreak, however.
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1590835675393556480
Indigo Rumbelow and the others that keep being put forward in the news certainly seems to be from the same mould as Tarquin the Trustafarian.
Is Essex County Council illiberal because it does not include districts from neighbouring counties?
People and governments need a push to take radical actions. I'd say society in general and the government have responded to the fervour of campaigners in recent decades, and in recognition that many changes are in their own interests as well.
Whether lying across a road is really helping sell the message further I question, though I cannot know, but is unconnected to the question of whether, having done so, such a person should face the consequences they claim to be ready to face.
I'd say yes, personally, where it is heightening the risk of a serious incident happening.
However Jesus himself never said anything against homosexual unions so as I said in a few years the C of E will most likely join the Lutheran, Methodist, Church of Scotland and Church in Wales, SEP and Church of Scotland and US Episcopal church and allow it too as those are the churches generally on the more liberal wing of Christianity now
As for “collapsing in real time”, Musk sold a load more Tesla stock since the deal closed. Wouldn’t surprise me to learn he sold more yesterday. I would guess he’s arming himself for Twitter to weather a storm.
And if it doesn’t disrupt it is largely ignored.
If the SPAD is an advisor (clue is in the name) to the elected politicians, but the elected politicians retain the responsibility for making and passing the laws then no, it is not.
I get the argument. I just think they are not realistic.
Wednesday public urination.
Thursday threats to kill and actual assault.
What will Friday bring?
Cossetted public sector. Time for cuts to our budget.
As far as top billionaires go, he might respond in strange fashion but I suppose he's probably more likely to treat you like a human being in his wierdness than Bezos, who probably only sees a spreadsheet of calculated worth when looking at others (my apologies to friends and family of the good Mr Bezos).
There are various, totally respectable answers to this and “wholly inadequate” is just your view.
Personally I found Cummings’s influence inside Downing Street much more “wholly inadequate”.
Anyone who believes in democracy should be much more exercised in affairs closer to home.
You're a hypocrite, a twat and a poseur
My argument with the hypocrite Gardenwalker is that he jumped in and excused the apparent death of someone as a result of the actions of the protestors in Germany. I am glad it is being said that this was not actually the case but that does not forgive Gardenwalker excusing the death because of the righteousness of the cause of the protestors.
Nobody can stop people breaking the law. The most the state can do is say that there are unpleasant consequences for breaking the law. (This isn't a cheap point- think how many populist headlines depend on getting that point wrong.)
And those consequences can only go so far. The state can only apply them if they can persuade a jury to convict. Which depends in part on what the jury think of the law and the likely punishment.
And that is the first step to recovery.
Perfectly democratic.
A pirate doesn't think "I'll break the law, but I'm a pirate, so I can break the law in full sight of the police/navy/whatever and get away with it". They do what they're prepared to do, knowing its risky, knowing it could have blowback.
If someone is prepared to spend time in prison for their cause, then respect to them for that. If someone thinks they have a good cause so therefore the law doesn't apply to them, then that's not on. The law applies to everybody or nobody.
And while some object to how strongly some people wish to see the protestors punished, it's not an unreasonable or inconsistent position to desire to see perceived lawbreakers punished. Is it showing 'venom' to want burglars punished?*
*the answer is no, it's an unrealistic fantasy.
Still think Dem win by at least 10k but have cashed out as was being offered most of the £50 @ 2.4 as a cash out. Not worth the risk or the hassle of watching closely for another 7 days
The PM is just another Member of Parliament, first among equals, not a class apart.
I merely noted a larger context and wondered why it didn’t exercise the same umbrage.
Just another example of you concluding that one plus one equal bananas.
I generally think I’m fairly liberal, right thinking person. I want a world we’re we have reached sustainable lives for all, not just the rich west. But I’m also a realist, something the nutters are not. Whoops, called them nutters. Sadly, I think many of them have serious mental issues. They may say the same about me.
If the EU didn't have lawmaking powers, then it wouldn't be an issue. Cummings didn't have lawmaking powers, Parliament does, the EU does, SPADs don't.
(I'm not the fittest, but I believe I would make a good underling if someone is in the market for one in the post apocalypse).
For sure they are scruffy and annoying.
But this in itself does not invalidate their cause or even their strategy.
Could one of you fucking thick Brexiteers explain in whose interest it is that real people have to wait for hours in a pointless queue so you can can pleasure yourselves with shiny Non EU black passports?
This is not the first time you’ve attempted to mischaracterise me, though I genuinely think it is because you have comprehension issues rather than bad faith.
But also: you have a house in Villefranche and have lived there - on and off - many years. Are you really so dim that you did not thereby apply for French Residency pre-Brexit, thus avoiding all this? You had about 5 years warning, or more
I mean, JFC. You have a reputation for a low-watt IQ but that is quite special
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
Numbers 16:1-50 ESV / 8 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. And they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, 250 chiefs of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men. They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” When Moses heard it, he fell on his face, and he said to Korah and all his company, “In the morning the Lord will show who is his, and who is holy, and will bring him near to him. The one whom he chooses he will bring near to him. .
Exodus 18:17-26 ESV / 8 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
Moses' father-in-law said to him, “What you are doing is not good. You and the people with you will certainly wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you. You are not able to do it alone. Now obey my voice; I will give you advice, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God and bring their cases to God, and you shall warn them about the statutes and the laws, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. ...
1 Peter 2:13-17 ESV / 83 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Deuteronomy 1:13 ESV / 64 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.
Acts 5:29 ESV / 62 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men"
I was relatively (but not completely) happy with status quo ante.
I once shared a pissaladiere in Nice with his sister
And I do love the "real people" jibe
REAL PEOPLE = ROGER
Tunisians = UNREAL
You have the right to that opinion. I have a right to have other priorities. But lets not pretend that UVDL is elected in the same way as Macron and Sunak are, its just disingenuous. Say it doesn't matter, that's fair enough.
Its like how some come here and say Covid wasn't real, that's disingenuous. I say it was real, but it doesn't matter, that's a difference of opinion/priorities.
Stay Out would win by several trillion votes
I'm sure the answer is probably too many civilian Khersonites, but if the Russians are likely to hit it anyway, there is some sense in it happening at a time of Ukraine's choosing, preferably around a counter evacuation.
I don’t accept your definitions and in fact I find them at odds with how writers on this subject define them.
As is sadly typical with you, I see you’re attempting to charge me with your own crimes, ie that of conflating various categories of leadership.
Still, I guess that’s a form of compliment.
And, for what it's worth, WHO estimates that about 8 million die from smoking each year. (Of course individuals have far more control over the second than the first.)
Trump has to get passed DeSantis first for the GOP nomination
Edit - Con were third in the ward in May so are going backwards here
Great thread from Mike Martin on tonight’s unfolding events in Kherson
SeaShantyIrish2 can probably tell you more, since he is closer to that scene.
I mean, why did Putin incorporate an area under so much threat of being lost? Does he think he can get it back? Was it so if he can muscle his way to a ceasefire he can claim both countries are occupying parts of what the other regards as its territory?
Generally, the casting of the royals themselves has been excellent.
The Prime Ministers, not so much, with the exception of Lithgow’s Churchill. Anderson’s Thatcher was notable and unforgettable but ultimately an over-the-top caricature.
https://twitter.com/andrewteale/status/1547568317556133893/photo/1
Rurals: 14k-15k left. Will boost Laxalt by 3k to 5k.
Means Cortez needs 55% to 60% of urban votes left.
How do you properly contract a “halfpenny’s worth”?
What rhymes with orange?
What is the past tense of “forbid”?
Etc
Lab GAIN in Braintree from an Indy elected as a Con
Personally I think this kind of protest can be counterproductive, and clearly blocking roads is going to disrupt traffic, including emergency vehicles.
But in general there are loads of things which cause traffic jams and I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of traffic jams in Germany aren't caused by climate protesters.
I find it manipulative in this case to say climate nutters claimed their first life, when it looks more like the cyclist was killed by a lorry driver.
AFU artillery hit a Russian column close to the Antonivsky bridge in Antonivka. Destroying personnel and equipment. Artillery barrages keep going for the last 2-3 hours now constantly.
Russians are trapped.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1590843959005544462
Ukrainian war correspondent Yuri Butusov says Kherson is within range of Ukrainian field artillery; Ukrainians are less than 18km from the city. Russian river crossings/nearby staging areas being hit.
The units supposed to cover the retreat are rushing to the Dniepr river.
https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1590838440974852103
This is consistent with reports shared with me about Kherson. A significant fraction of the Russian Mobik rear guard units have routed overnight.
I've been told some really horrible images of the Russian dead in the Dnipro are coming.
https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1590856025652875264
Tory loses their deposit