" its still completely possible to have a referendum, and then not get what we sign up for."
Actually it is impossible to have a referendum and to know what the alternatives are.
The terms of trade and the details of our relationship with the EU can only be settled after invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty but that can only be invoked after we have voted to leave.
It is therefore impossible for the electorate to be given what I would call a fair vote.
That should be the worry of everyone. But in a referendum campaign I would have thought the difffering parties would be asked what their intention would be if the vote was YES - to leave. The EU presumably would not be keen to offer an alternative as part of negotiations. But then again we do not know how semi detached these negotiations might leave us bearing in mind the inevitable Eurozone/EU integration. Cameron did say that he did not believe in 'ever closer union' so from his point of view the negotiations would involve resolving that.
One way or another under a Conservative govt we will become semi detached from the EU.
Re torture. They also chained a prisoner to a wall in such a way that he couldn't stand up; wearing only a sweatshirt he died of cold sitting on a concrete floor all night in an unheated cell in winter. It is just literally incredible, unthinkable brutality.
There seems to be some pathological American addiction to euphemism. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" when they mean "Nazi-style torture", FFS. Specifically, "walling [smashing people into walls via a towel knotted around their neck], attention grasps, slapping, facial hold [physical assaults of one kind or another], stress positions, cramped confinement, white noise and sleep deprivation" - the latter three often in combination for periods over a week.
The rectal "feeding" sounds like homosexual rape to me. Why aren't these people being jailed for 100 years?
Re torture. They also chained a prisoner to a wall in such a way that he couldn't stand up; wearing only a sweatshirt he died of cold sitting on a concrete floor all night in an unheated cell in winter. It is just literally incredible, unthinkable brutality.
There seems to be some pathological American addiction to euphemism. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" when they mean "Nazi-style torture", FFS. Specifically, "walling [smashing people into walls via a towel knotted around their neck], attention grasps, slapping, facial hold [physical assaults of one kind or another], stress positions, cramped confinement, white noise and sleep deprivation" - the latter three often in combination for periods over a week.
The rectal "feeding" sounds like homosexual rape to me. Why aren't these people being jailed for 100 years?
Rectal rehydration is a long established technique, and one often used to give fluids in a combat situation:
Brilliant. Lets vote for the party that will give us a referendum.
Well that rules out cast iron Dave and and his phony conservatives.
No it does not. Cameron broke no promises and the only phony id Farage peddling his big lie about the EU. Not that bigoted you cares tuppence about truth.
So Cameron never gave a "cast iron guarantee" for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?
Could you point out what exactly I've said that is bigoted?
Re torture. They also chained a prisoner to a wall in such a way that he couldn't stand up; wearing only a sweatshirt he died of cold sitting on a concrete floor all night in an unheated cell in winter. It is just literally incredible, unthinkable brutality.
There seems to be some pathological American addiction to euphemism. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" when they mean "Nazi-style torture", FFS. Specifically, "walling [smashing people into walls via a towel knotted around their neck], attention grasps, slapping, facial hold [physical assaults of one kind or another], stress positions, cramped confinement, white noise and sleep deprivation" - the latter three often in combination for periods over a week.
The rectal "feeding" sounds like homosexual rape to me. Why aren't these people being jailed for 100 years?
Like there's some pathological British addiction to child abuse, with everyone from MPs to Rotherham taxi drivers engaging in it and then getting it covered up?
The problem here isn't "Americans". It's one particular faction that has grabbed control of one political party. This stuff hasn't been done since Obama came in, wasn't done under Clinton, and wasn't done under Bush Senior.
Blimey. Is there anything that you won't try and link to your strange obsession?
Like it or not, it's the biggest scandal from the UK making the American news.
" its still completely possible to have a referendum, and then not get what we sign up for."
Actually it is impossible to have a referendum and to know what the alternatives are.
The terms of trade and the details of our relationship with the EU can only be settled after invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty but that can only be invoked after we have voted to leave.
It is therefore impossible for the electorate to be given what I would call a fair vote.
That should be the worry of everyone. But in a referendum campaign I would have thought the difffering parties would be asked what their intention would be if the vote was YES - to leave. The EU presumably would not be keen to offer an alternative as part of negotiations. But then again we do not know how semi detached these negotiations might leave us bearing in mind the inevitable Eurozone/EU integration. Cameron did say that he did not believe in 'ever closer union' so from his point of view the negotiations would involve resolving that.
One way or another under a Conservative govt we will become semi detached from the EU.
The beauty of it all is that if anyone (pace @Socrates) doesn't like the premise of the question, then it's "out".
Any attempted bait & switch on the part of the Cons in saying "well they're going to do this, that or the other for us in future" which people don't believe? People have a choice to say "out".
" its still completely possible to have a referendum, and then not get what we sign up for."
Actually it is impossible to have a referendum and to know what the alternatives are.
The terms of trade and the details of our relationship with the EU can only be settled after invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty but that can only be invoked after we have voted to leave.
It is therefore impossible for the electorate to be given what I would call a fair vote.
Just as long as the BOO campaign face up to the same responsibility, and detail what 'being our of the EU' means in terms of which bodies we will be part of and not part of, and the costs thereof.
Agreement on that might be just as difficult as Cameron's negotiations, both inside Britain and with the organisations themselves.
Apologies Mr Llama, I misunderstood your post. Please ignore my post. (cue laughter from other posters and lurkers) :-)
No bother, Mr. J., we have all misread posts from time to time.
Tony Blair knew in detail about the CIA’s secret kidnap and interrogation programme after the September 11 attacks, a security source has told The Telegraph, the newspaper reported.
The then prime minster and Jack Straw, his foreign secretary, were kept informed “every step of the way” by MI6 and were shown Bush administration legal opinions that declared “enhanced interrogation” techniques such as waterboarding and stress positions to be legal, the source said.
Brilliant. Lets vote for the party that will give us a referendum.
Well that rules out cast iron Dave and and his phony conservatives.
No it does not. Cameron broke no promises and the only phony id Farage peddling his big lie about the EU. Not that bigoted you cares tuppence about truth.
So Cameron never gave a "cast iron guarantee" for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?
Could you point out what exactly I've said that is bigoted?
Flightpath throws around the word "bigot" all the time. It substitutes for argument.
"I don;t think any right wingers have defended these torturing quasi-rapists..."
Bruce Anderson comes to mind: he went on record saying he wouldn't be bothered if the US tortured an innocent or two, even children, and I doubt his attitude towards gays is an especially enlightened one. Perhaps the most egregious aspect of this vile man's nonsense is that *The Independent* hired him!
Re torture. They also chained a prisoner to a wall in such a way that he couldn't stand up; wearing only a sweatshirt he died of cold sitting on a concrete floor all night in an unheated cell in winter. It is just literally incredible, unthinkable brutality.
There seems to be some pathological American addiction to euphemism. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" when they mean "Nazi-style torture", FFS. Specifically, "walling [smashing people into walls via a towel knotted around their neck], attention grasps, slapping, facial hold [physical assaults of one kind or another], stress positions, cramped confinement, white noise and sleep deprivation" - the latter three often in combination for periods over a week.
The rectal "feeding" sounds like homosexual rape to me. Why aren't these people being jailed for 100 years?
It's no different to what the Germans were up to in the 40's, boiling people alive and ripping off fingernails etc
While the US torture program is a terrible and horrific thing, it's clearly very different to what the Germans were up to in the 40s. US torture methods inadvertently caused one man to die. The Germans deliberately executed millions.
I'm not comparing the USA to the Third Reich, I'm comparing the CIA to the Gestapo and the Kempeitai. In their methods they are identical.
Rereading The Railway Man recently, I note the following similarities between Japanese and American interrogation methods:
- violent physical assault; Lomax was beaten with pickaxe handles, American detainees with fists, boots and by being smashed face-first into walls - withholding of medical assistance; the CIA waterboarded a man with a head cold and doctors' role was limited to approving further torture - exposure to extreme temperatures in stress positions: the Japanese made men stand at attention in full tropical sun for 3 days; the CIA chained men naked to walls in unheated cells in winter - waterboarding: practice common to both CIA and Kempeitai - confinement boxes: both shackled prisoners into boxes (CIA) / cages (Kempeitai) where they were unable to extend their limbs - perpetual artificial light: the lights were left on all the time at Outram Road jail, as in the US prisons - prisoners forced to sleep on concrete - threats to prisoners' friends and families - mock executions
On balance the CIA were actually worse - the Japanese did not routinely anally rape their prisoners.
I think the love of the obfuscatory euphemism is indeed characteristic of American officialdom. Does anyone else remember Norman Schwarzkopf mentioning "collateral damage to a religious facility" when he meant " we bombed a mosque"?
I can forgive Tristram for not liking public schools if he went to one, but Anthony Crosland also went to public school and he hated Grammar schools- a bit bizarre.
Ed's also weird, so are we to conclude that it's the parents that cause the trouble and that Philip Larkin was correct with that poem?
It's no different to what the Germans were up to in the 40's, boiling people alive and ripping off fingernails etc
While the US torture program is a terrible and horrific thing, it's clearly very different to what the Germans were up to in the 40s. US torture methods inadvertently caused one man to die. The Germans deliberately executed millions.
I'm not comparing the USA to the Third Reich, I'm comparing the CIA to the Gestapo and the Kempeitai. In their methods they are identical.
Rereading The Railway Man recently, I note the following similarities between Japanese and American interrogation methods:
- violent physical assault; Lomax was beaten with pickaxe handles, American detainees with fists, boots and by being smashed face-first into walls - withholding of medical assistance; the CIA waterboarded a man with a head cold and doctors' role was limited to approving further torture - exposure to extreme temperatures in stress positions: the Japanese made men stand at attention in full tropical sun for 3 days; the CIA chained men naked to walls in unheated cells in winter - waterboarding: practice common to both CIA and Kempeitai - confinement boxes: both shackled prisoners into boxes (CIA) / cages (Kempeitai) where they were unable to extend their limbs - perpetual artificial light: the lights were left on all the time at Outram Road jail, as in the US prisons - prisoners forced to sleep on concrete - threats to prisoners' friends and families - mock executions
On balance the CIA were actually worse - the Japanese did not routinely anally rape their prisoners.
I think the love of the obfuscatory euphemism is indeed characteristic of American officialdom. Does anyone else remember Norman Schwarzkopf mentioning "collateral damage to a religious facility" when he meant " we bombed a mosque"?
"And you have interfered with my plans for the last time, Mr Bond!"
The beauty of it all is that if anyone (pace @Socrates) doesn't like the premise of the question, then it's "out".
Any attempted bait & switch on the part of the Cons in saying "well they're going to do this, that or the other for us in future" which people don't believe? People have a choice to say "out".
It really is simplicity itself.
Precisely. It is symmetrical: there will no doubt be some uncertainty on the final terms if we stay in (I agree with Socrates that it won't be done and dusted), but there will of course be as much, or probably more, uncertainty on the terms if we leave. That's life: you have to make a choice on incomplete information. That would be no different whenever a choice between staying in or leaving was made.
The intellectual contortions the Kippers get themselves into in order to justify trying to sabotage the referendum are a wonder to behold. Do we want to leave the EU or not? That is what the British people will have the opportunity to decide, if we get a Conservative government.
"I don;t think any right wingers have defended these torturing quasi-rapists..."
Bruce Anderson comes to mind: he went on record saying he wouldn't be bothered if the US tortured an innocent or two, even children, and I doubt his attitude towards gays is an especially enlightened one. Perhaps the most egregious aspect of this vile man's nonsense is that *The Independent* hired him!
The then Labour government were complicit in the perverted barbarity.
I always remember a sports day where the parents of one of our stupidest students arrived on the playing fields in his monogrammed helicopter blowing several of the stalls over and the marquee only being saved by some lusty guests holding the guide ropes. This student in a true meritocracy would now likely be on benefits
So where did I see him last week? Presenting the prime minister to his workforce as one of our leading buisiness men in the country (and a Tory donor) As someone said yesterday a fish rots from the head (or was it the tail) down and so it is with our class system. If we have any chance of making the country a better place the least we can do is give kids an equal start as soon as is possible
Unusual to see an anecdote which fails on so many different levels. The student himself wasn't flying the helicopter, so what has this got to do with his intelligence? Whoever was flying the helicopter was presumably qualified to do so, and I imagine helicopter pilots are taught to think carefully when landing anywhere about the possible effects of turbulence. Why would "lusty" (do you mean "sturdy"?) guests need to hold on to the guy (not guide) ropes, which would already be anchored to the ground? Why would any school, even one as vulgar and awful as Millfield, give permission to anyone to land a helicopter on a playing field on sports day?
Quite unusual to find pilot quite so unaware of Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air Regulations.
To be fair to Jack Straw, he had more important things to worry about than torture -- such as passing laws criminalising the malicious breaking of shopkeepers' eggs!
"I don;t think any right wingers have defended these torturing quasi-rapists..."
Bruce Anderson comes to mind: he went on record saying he wouldn't be bothered if the US tortured an innocent or two, even children, and I doubt his attitude towards gays is an especially enlightened one. Perhaps the most egregious aspect of this vile man's nonsense is that *The Independent* hired him!
The then Labour government were complicit in the perverted barbarity.
There's a word for a political creed that considers individuals expendable in pursuit of the state's objectives.
Tony Blair knew in detail about the CIA’s secret kidnap and interrogation programme after the September 11 attacks, a security source has told The Telegraph, the newspaper reported.
The then prime minster and Jack Straw, his foreign secretary, were kept informed “every step of the way” by MI6 and were shown Bush administration legal opinions that declared “enhanced interrogation” techniques such as waterboarding and stress positions to be legal, the source said.
On PMQs, I notice that Harriet said that there has been a 90% fall in the number of sex discrimination cases brought to industrial tribunals. Apparently she thinks this is a bad thing.
On PMQs, I notice that Harriet said that there has been a 90% fall in the number of sex discrimination cases brought to industrial tribunals. Apparently she thinks this is a bad thing.
Fresh from the DUP ruling out going into a coalition, Caroline Lucas has just ruled out the Greens going into coalition with the Conservatives. That does smack rather of me ruling myself out of consideration for the England football team.
The beauty of it all is that if anyone (pace @Socrates) doesn't like the premise of the question, then it's "out".
Any attempted bait & switch on the part of the Cons in saying "well they're going to do this, that or the other for us in future" which people don't believe? People have a choice to say "out".
It really is simplicity itself.
Precisely. It is symmetrical: there will no doubt be some uncertainty on the final terms if we stay in (I agree with Socrates that it won't be done and dusted), but there will of course be as much, or probably more, uncertainty on the terms if we leave. That's life: you have to make a choice on incomplete information. That would be no different whenever a choice between staying in or leaving was made.
The intellectual contortions the Kippers get themselves into in order to justify trying to sabotage the referendum are a wonder to behold. Do we want to leave the EU or not? That is what the British people will have the opportunity to decide, if we get a Conservative government.
Correct. The EU will not go away and we have to trade with it and deal with it. Immigration is not going to go away if we leave, but from UKIPs point of view the great joy is that it can still whip up prejudice against immigrants. Perversly the way to reduce immigration is to improve the prosperity of the immigrant's home countries. And UKIP resents that.
'Re torture. They also chained a prisoner to a wall in such a way that he couldn't stand up; wearing only a sweatshirt he died of cold sitting on a concrete floor all night in an unheated cell in winter. It is just literally incredible, unthinkable brutality........"
Good post 007.
Has anyone ever done a cost analysis of our 'special relationship' with the US?
Since '45 they've brought us nothing but expensive trouble and shame. We should have adopted the French model years ago and only dealt with them with a very long spoon. .
What about imposing economic sanctions on Argentina after they invaded the Falklands, winning the Cold War for us, providing large funds for the establishment of democracies in Eastern Europe, liberating Kuwait to allow a continued energy supply, etc?
It's my understanding that what little assistance the US did provide was courtesy of George Schultz. The French were actually our most reliable ally.
Torture is both morally wrong and provides little reliable intelligence, still the CIA can hardly be compared to the NKVD.
"The intellectual contortions the Kippers get themselves into in order to justify trying to sabotage the referendum are a wonder to behold"
I do hope that remark wasn't aimed at me, Old Chap. I am not trying to sabotage anything, merely pointing out that what you call "some uncertainty" will in fact be a leap in the dark because nobody can know what our relationship with the EU will be if we decide to leave until after we have decided to leave.
Tony Blair knew in detail about the CIA’s secret kidnap and interrogation programme after the September 11 attacks, a security source has told The Telegraph, the newspaper reported.
The then prime minster and Jack Straw, his foreign secretary, were kept informed “every step of the way” by MI6 and were shown Bush administration legal opinions that declared “enhanced interrogation” techniques such as waterboarding and stress positions to be legal, the source said.
It doesn't make it worse, Socco, just confirms what we knew already.
Blair's major failing was a blind allegiance to the US. It didn't work out too bad whilst Clinton was in the Oval Office, but when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld moved in he was locked in to supporting a disastrous administration, more or less regardless of its policies and without any influence over them.
Whether he approved of the torture or not, he would have been powerless to do anything about it. I suppose therefore he just shrugged and decided there was nothing he could do about it.
Mr Bond - the gestapo killed millions. The CIA haven't.
Were the CIA in any way effective in their methods? That must have some bearing. I'm guessing the suggestion is it did not. I'm sure in WW2 we used some extreme methods. But then we did not have to worry about much, other than national survival, certainly not senate committees and adverse publicity which helps your supposed enemies.
''A lot of the rightwingers defending these torturing quasi-rapists are the same people who think consensual homosexuality should be recriminalised.''
I don;t think any right wingers have defended these torturing quasi-rapists. Certainly not any on here.
This is a straw man.
If you watch Fox news, you will see and hear a lot of "right wingers" defending the CIA. In fact, the way they see it, by investigating the CIA, Obama and the Democrats have struck a blow for Al Queda.
It made me quite cross. Not cross enough to find myself siding with @LuckyPutinPuppet1983, but pretty cross.
Tony Blair knew in detail about the CIA’s secret kidnap and interrogation programme after the September 11 attacks, a security source has told The Telegraph, the newspaper reported.
The then prime minster and Jack Straw, his foreign secretary, were kept informed “every step of the way” by MI6 and were shown Bush administration legal opinions that declared “enhanced interrogation” techniques such as waterboarding and stress positions to be legal, the source said.
It doesn't make it worse, Socco, just confirms what we knew already.
Blair's major failing was a blind allegiance to the US. It didn't work out too bad whilst Clinton was in the Oval Office, but when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld moved in he was locked in to supporting a disastrous administration, more or less regardless of its policies and without any influence over them.
Whether he approved of the torture or not, he would have been powerless to do anything about it. I suppose therefore he just shrugged and decided there was nothing he could do about it.
Rubbish. Blair is a far more blood-thirsty warmonger than any of the yanks you mention.
The authors point out that immigrants bring with them the benefit of their education paid for by their home country. They estimate this amounts to £49 billion over 1995-2011. This is not included in their calculation in table 6.
They also say "In our analysis we consider immigrants’ children under the age of 16 as immigrants regardless of birth country but classify as natives everyone who is at least 16 and UK born, regardless of parents’ birthplace. This choice, it should be noted, suggests that we are neglecting the contribution that these the children of immigrants will make when they enter the labour market. [But they are counting their cost of education] Likewise, we are neglecting the costs of educating the immigrants themselves, which – other than the cost of educating thenative born workforce – has been borne not by British taxpayers but by taxpayers in the origin country. [The £49 billion referred to above].
Thus, while assigning to immigrants the cost of educating their UK-born children, we are unable to assign to them the benefits that their children will bring after leaving the education system and entering the labour market. In this sense, all the results presented below are underestimates of immigrants’ net fiscal contribution."
So overall their paper strongly suggests a net positive economic impact of immigration.
From your remarks I suspect that we both believe that immigration should be better managed by taking a more hard-headed cost benefit approach. However I am not emotionally engaged in the debate and would probably put the optimal net immigration target somewhat higher than you. I don't have a figure in mind.
Tony Blair knew in detail about the CIA’s secret kidnap and interrogation programme after the September 11 attacks, a security source has told The Telegraph, the newspaper reported.
The then prime minster and Jack Straw, his foreign secretary, were kept informed “every step of the way” by MI6 and were shown Bush administration legal opinions that declared “enhanced interrogation” techniques such as waterboarding and stress positions to be legal, the source said.
It doesn't make it worse, Socco, just confirms what we knew already.
Blair's major failing was a blind allegiance to the US. It didn't work out too bad whilst Clinton was in the Oval Office, but when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld moved in he was locked in to supporting a disastrous administration, more or less regardless of its policies and without any influence over them.
Whether he approved of the torture or not, he would have been powerless to do anything about it. I suppose therefore he just shrugged and decided there was nothing he could do about it.
The counter-factual is a Britain that decided that it would behave broadly as Germany and France did. Would that have been better? With the benefit of hindsight, I think the answer is clearly yes.
But in defence of Tony Blair (words I rarely write), he and the Foreign Office presumably formed the view that someone had to act as a restraining influence on the US, or the world looked as though it would come under the sway of a unipolar hyperpower that paid no regard to the previously established rules of international law. Britain was uniquely well-placed to play that role.
Imagine a world where the USA had invaded Iraq by itself and the later reconstruction had been more of a success. Do you think that it would have stopped there?
Tony Blair sought to stabilise the world by tempering American passions, and did so at the expense of his own integrity, lying to get the nation's support of the invasion. Yet it proved to be unnecessary. In many ways, it is a story worthy of a Shakespearean tragedy.
I do hope that remark wasn't aimed at me, Old Chap. I am not trying to sabotage anything, merely pointing out that what you call "some uncertainty" will in fact be a leap in the dark because nobody can know what our relationship with the EU will be if we decide to leave until after we have decided to leave.
Brilliant. Lets vote for the party that will give us a referendum.
Well that rules out cast iron Dave and and his phony conservatives.
No it does not. Cameron broke no promises and the only phony id Farage peddling his big lie about the EU. Not that bigoted you cares tuppence about truth.
So Cameron never gave a "cast iron guarantee" for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?
Could you point out what exactly I've said that is bigoted?
You have traduced his comment. At the time of the Euro elections Cameron said if the treaty was not ratified before the (possibly then imminent general election) then he would give a referendum if elected. It was clearly stated in the manifesto. Brown delayed the election and signed the treaty. Cameron and the tory party voted against the treaty. Labour signed the trreaty thus demonstrating their compliance with the EU. Cameron does not want ever closer union he wants to renegotiate our place in the EU. He promises a referendum after negotiations.
The only phony based on the facts is you - you who are happy to act to see that pro-EU Miliband and his pro Eu party are elected. I stand happy in my disgust of you thank you very much.
Whether he approved of the torture or not, he would have been powerless to do anything about it. I suppose therefore he just shrugged and decided there was nothing he could do about it.
I think that is over-generous. Indeed you could make a decent case for the proposition that Tony Blair was the only leader outside the US in a position to do something about it. And, even if he wasn't, he didn't have to associate us with what the US was doing.
The authors point out that immigrants bring with them the benefit of their education paid for by their home country. They estimate this amounts to £49 billion over 1995-2011. This is not included in their calculation in table 6.
They also say "In our analysis we consider immigrants’ children under the age of 16 as immigrants regardless of birth country but classify as natives everyone who is at least 16 and UK born, regardless of parents’ birthplace. This choice, it should be noted, suggests that we are neglecting the contribution that these the children of immigrants will make when they enter the labour market. [But they are counting their cost of education] Likewise, we are neglecting the costs of educating the immigrants themselves, which – other than the cost of educating thenative born workforce – has been borne not by British taxpayers but by taxpayers in the origin country. [The £49 billion referred to above].
Thus, while assigning to immigrants the cost of educating their UK-born children, we are unable to assign to them the benefits that their children will bring after leaving the education system and entering the labour market. In this sense, all the results presented below are underestimates of immigrants’ net fiscal contribution."
So overall their paper strongly suggests a net positive economic impact of immigration.
From your remarks I suspect that we both believe that immigration should be better managed by taking a more hard-headed cost benefit approach. However I am not emotionally engaged in the debate and would probably put the optimal net immigration target somewhat higher than you. I don't have a figure in mind.
Well done you for reading the thing through.
I think several studies have concluded that immigration is a (perhaps small) net positive to the host nation in terms of increased return on capital (as wages fall) and expanded GDP but that there is a section of the host population (namely those where there is competition with immigrants for jobs) which lose out immediately.
It is for these people that presumably the Kippers are standing up.
IMO they are not doing a very good job at articulating the actual dynamics involved, but then neither are the other parties.
I'm not sure of the political implications of saying something along the lines of: "you may have lost your job but don't worry it's for the greater good and anyway, when your ex-boss builds a new factory you may get a job there."
Whether he approved of the torture or not, he would have been powerless to do anything about it. I suppose therefore he just shrugged and decided there was nothing he could do about it.
I think that is over-generous. Indeed you could make a decent case for the proposition that Tony Blair was the only leader outside the US in a position to do something about it. And, even if he wasn't, he didn't have to associate us with what the US was doing.
Blair could have put a stop to Rendition Flights using British facilities.
The authors point out that immigrants bring with them the benefit of their education paid for by their home country. They estimate this amounts to £49 billion over 1995-2011. This is not included in their calculation in table 6.
They also say "In our analysis we consider immigrants’ children under the age of 16 as immigrants regardless of birth country but classify as natives everyone who is at least 16 and UK born, regardless of parents’ birthplace. This choice, it should be noted, suggests that we are neglecting the contribution that these the children of immigrants will make when they enter the labour market. [But they are counting their cost of education] Likewise, we are neglecting the costs of educating the immigrants themselves, which – other than the cost of educating thenative born workforce – has been borne not by British taxpayers but by taxpayers in the origin country. [The £49 billion referred to above].
Thus, while assigning to immigrants the cost of educating their UK-born children, we are unable to assign to them the benefits that their children will bring after leaving the education system and entering the labour market. In this sense, all the results presented below are underestimates of immigrants’ net fiscal contribution."
So overall their paper strongly suggests a net positive economic impact of immigration.
From your remarks I suspect that we both believe that immigration should be better managed by taking a more hard-headed cost benefit approach. However I am not emotionally engaged in the debate and would probably put the optimal net immigration target somewhat higher than you. I don't have a figure in mind.
Those numbers were snapshot of the costs in that particular time period. It doesn't include future tax from the children admittedly, but it doesn't include future costs either (be it years of schooling for existing children post-2011, costs of educating children yet to be had, or future healthcare and pension costs. If someone wants to do a projected lifetime analysis of the costs and benefits, I'd be interested to see it, but it's dishonest to add just the future tax without the future costs. What this is is the costs and revenues from immigrants in any one time period, and that shows not just a negative, but a huge negative.
Whether he approved of the torture or not, he would have been powerless to do anything about it. I suppose therefore he just shrugged and decided there was nothing he could do about it.
I think that is over-generous. Indeed you could make a decent case for the proposition that Tony Blair was the only leader outside the US in a position to do something about it. And, even if he wasn't, he didn't have to associate us with what the US was doing.
No, I agree he could and should have done something about it, Richard, but I think Bush et al were pretty dismissive of him.
It probably wouldn't have made a difference but he should still have done the right thing.
My recollection is that European Leaders generally edged away from the US during that period, but 'Europe' was no more popular in this country then than it is now, so there would not have been many votes in aligning more with European Leaders. All the same, it would have been better for us and maybe even the US had he done so.
"I don;t think any right wingers have defended these torturing quasi-rapists..."
Bruce Anderson comes to mind: he went on record saying he wouldn't be bothered if the US tortured an innocent or two, even children, and I doubt his attitude towards gays is an especially enlightened one. Perhaps the most egregious aspect of this vile man's nonsense is that *The Independent* hired him!
The then Labour government were complicit in the perverted barbarity.
There's a word for a political creed that considers individuals expendable in pursuit of the state's objectives.
In fact, the way they see it, by investigating the CIA, Obama and the Democrats have struck a blow for Al Queda.
Whichever side you are on, Al Qaeda is undoubtedly the winner here.
The winners here are the people that believe in transparency towards criminal activity. Those behind the torture regime have had their reputations destroyed, and rightfully so. I only hope that the US will now investigate those responsible for this criminal activity. Sadly, Obama is not doing so, which is the greatest mistake he's made in office.
The authors point out that immigrants bring with them the benefit of their education paid for by their home country. They estimate this amounts to £49 billion over 1995-2011. This is not included in their calculation in table 6.
They also say "In our analysis we consider immigrants’ children under the age of 16 as immigrants regardless of birth country but classify as natives everyone who is at least 16 and UK born, regardless of parents’ birthplace. This choice, it should be noted, suggests that we are neglecting the contribution that these the children of immigrants will make when they enter the labour market. [But they are counting their cost of education] Likewise, we are neglecting the costs of educating the immigrants themselves, which – other than the cost of educating thenative born workforce – has been borne not by British taxpayers but by taxpayers in the origin country. [The £49 billion referred to above].
Thus, while assigning to immigrants the cost of educating their UK-born children, we are unable to assign to them the benefits that their children will bring after leaving the education system and entering the labour market. In this sense, all the results presented below are underestimates of immigrants’ net fiscal contribution."
So overall their paper strongly suggests a net positive economic impact of immigration.
From your remarks I suspect that we both believe that immigration should be better managed by taking a more hard-headed cost benefit approach. However I am not emotionally engaged in the debate and would probably put the optimal net immigration target somewhat higher than you. I don't have a figure in mind.
Well done you for reading the thing through.
I think several studies have concluded that immigration is a (perhaps small) net positive to the host nation in terms of increased return on capital (as wages fall) and expanded GDP but that there is a section of the host population (namely those where there is competition with immigrants for jobs) which lose out immediately.
It is for these people that presumably the Kippers are standing up.
IMO they are not doing a very good job at articulating the actual dynamics involved, but then neither are the other parties.
I'm not sure of the political implications of saying something along the lines of: "you may have lost your job but don't worry it's for the greater good and anyway, when your ex-boss builds a new factory you may get a job there."
Probably not wildly positive.
I don't think anyone is arguing that immigration cannot be a very positive thing for the host nation. It is the scale and scope that can be damaging and taking, as Barnesian suggests, a hard-headed cost-benefit approach will reduce or eliminate that damage.
Tony Blair knew in detail about the CIA’s secret kidnap and interrogation programme after the September 11 attacks, a security source has told The Telegraph, the newspaper reported.
The then prime minster and Jack Straw, his foreign secretary, were kept informed “every step of the way” by MI6 and were shown Bush administration legal opinions that declared “enhanced interrogation” techniques such as waterboarding and stress positions to be legal, the source said.
It doesn't make it worse, Socco, just confirms what we knew already.
Blair's major failing was a blind allegiance to the US. It didn't work out too bad whilst Clinton was in the Oval Office, but when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld moved in he was locked in to supporting a disastrous administration, more or less regardless of its policies and without any influence over them.
Whether he approved of the torture or not, he would have been powerless to do anything about it. I suppose therefore he just shrugged and decided there was nothing he could do about it.
The counter-factual is a Britain that decided that it would behave broadly as Germany and France did. Would that have been better? With the benefit of hindsight, I think the answer is clearly yes.
But in defence of Tony Blair (words I rarely write), he and the Foreign Office presumably formed the view that someone had to act as a restraining influence on the US, or the world looked as though it would come under the sway of a unipolar hyperpower that paid no regard to the previously established rules of international law. Britain was uniquely well-placed to play that role.
Imagine a world where the USA had invaded Iraq by itself and the later reconstruction had been more of a success. Do you think that it would have stopped there?
Tony Blair sought to stabilise the world by tempering American passions, and did so at the expense of his own integrity, lying to get the nation's support of the invasion. Yet it proved to be unnecessary. In many ways, it is a story worthy of a Shakespearean tragedy.
I can see the argument, Frank, but there is ample evidence that Bush and his advisers were dismissive of Blair. His influence was negligible.
He may of course have had the best of intentions, and been disappointed to find how little impact his views had. In hindsite, it is obvious. But he was wrong, badly wrong, and his foreign policy in the post-Clinton years looks worse and worse with the passage of time.
I was shocked to find out what the acronym NORWICH stood for.
Cue conversation about that fact that Knickers is spelled with a "K" and whether the use of Norwich would contravene the Post Office Telecommunications Act and if so how should the Bishop of Norwich sign a telegram.
The numbers who died at the hands of the Gestapo or the Japanese security services were many orders of magnitude greater than those who died at the hands of the CIA, so I don't think it's worth comparing them.
That doesn't alter the fact that this report has revealed a scandal.
The numbers who died at the hands of the Gestapo or the Japanese security services were many orders of magnitude greater than those who died at the hands of the CIA, so I don't think it's worth comparing them.
That doesn't alter the fact that this report has revealed a scandal.
Indeed. A scandal which shames America and which will be used by IS and others to justify/excuse their own brutality.
One of the truly great scifi films is on BBC2 this Saturday.
Forbidden Planet.
That is a good one.
I'm one of the very few people who enjoyed David Lynch's version of Dune.
Never saw the movie, but the board game is a great multi-player derivation of the books.
I enjoyed that game too. Like most multi-player games it suffered from the problem of being able to get enough people together, with sufficient supplies of alcohol, long enough to play it to a finish but it was great fun.
I re-read the book quite recently too and was surprised just how good it was.
Comments
The EU presumably would not be keen to offer an alternative as part of negotiations. But then again we do not know how semi detached these negotiations might leave us bearing in mind the inevitable Eurozone/EU integration. Cameron did say that he did not believe in 'ever closer union' so from his point of view the negotiations would involve resolving that.
One way or another under a Conservative govt we will become semi detached from the EU.
http://www.realfirstaid.co.uk/rectal/
Not that I am suggesting the CIA acted properly!
I don;t think any right wingers have defended these torturing quasi-rapists. Certainly not any on here.
This is a straw man.
I'm a mouthy bastard.
If I were Tory leader and someone defected to UKIP my language would have been very naughty.
Tory leader calls Mark Reckless a...
Could you point out what exactly I've said that is bigoted?
Any attempted bait & switch on the part of the Cons in saying "well they're going to do this, that or the other for us in future" which people don't believe? People have a choice to say "out".
It really is simplicity itself.
Tony Blair knew in detail about the CIA’s secret kidnap and interrogation programme after the September 11 attacks, a security source has told The Telegraph, the newspaper reported.
The then prime minster and Jack Straw, his foreign secretary, were kept informed “every step of the way” by MI6 and were shown Bush administration legal opinions that declared “enhanced interrogation” techniques such as waterboarding and stress positions to be legal, the source said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tony-blair-knew-everything-about-cia-interrogation-programme-9241863.html
Bruce Anderson comes to mind: he went on record saying he wouldn't be bothered if the US tortured an innocent or two, even children, and I doubt his attitude towards gays is an especially enlightened one. Perhaps the most egregious aspect of this vile man's nonsense is that *The Independent* hired him!
Rereading The Railway Man recently, I note the following similarities between Japanese and American interrogation methods:
- violent physical assault; Lomax was beaten with pickaxe handles, American detainees with fists, boots and by being smashed face-first into walls
- withholding of medical assistance; the CIA waterboarded a man with a head cold and doctors' role was limited to approving further torture
- exposure to extreme temperatures in stress positions: the Japanese made men stand at attention in full tropical sun for 3 days; the CIA chained men naked to walls in unheated cells in winter
- waterboarding: practice common to both CIA and Kempeitai
- confinement boxes: both shackled prisoners into boxes (CIA) / cages (Kempeitai) where they were unable to extend their limbs
- perpetual artificial light: the lights were left on all the time at Outram Road jail, as in the US prisons
- prisoners forced to sleep on concrete
- threats to prisoners' friends and families
- mock executions
On balance the CIA were actually worse - the Japanese did not routinely anally rape their prisoners.
I think the love of the obfuscatory euphemism is indeed characteristic of American officialdom. Does anyone else remember Norman Schwarzkopf mentioning "collateral damage to a religious facility" when he meant " we bombed a mosque"?
I can forgive Tristram for not liking public schools if he went to one, but Anthony Crosland also went to public school and he hated Grammar schools- a bit bizarre.
Ed's also weird, so are we to conclude that it's the parents that cause the trouble and that Philip Larkin was correct with that poem?
The intellectual contortions the Kippers get themselves into in order to justify trying to sabotage the referendum are a wonder to behold. Do we want to leave the EU or not? That is what the British people will have the opportunity to decide, if we get a Conservative government.
Immigration is not going to go away if we leave, but from UKIPs point of view the great joy is that it can still whip up prejudice against immigrants.
Perversly the way to reduce immigration is to improve the prosperity of the immigrant's home countries. And UKIP resents that.
Torture is both morally wrong and provides little reliable intelligence, still the CIA can hardly be compared to the NKVD.
"The intellectual contortions the Kippers get themselves into in order to justify trying to sabotage the referendum are a wonder to behold"
I do hope that remark wasn't aimed at me, Old Chap. I am not trying to sabotage anything, merely pointing out that what you call "some uncertainty" will in fact be a leap in the dark because nobody can know what our relationship with the EU will be if we decide to leave until after we have decided to leave.
Blair's major failing was a blind allegiance to the US. It didn't work out too bad whilst Clinton was in the Oval Office, but when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld moved in he was locked in to supporting a disastrous administration, more or less regardless of its policies and without any influence over them.
Whether he approved of the torture or not, he would have been powerless to do anything about it. I suppose therefore he just shrugged and decided there was nothing he could do about it.
Were the CIA in any way effective in their methods? That must have some bearing. I'm guessing the suggestion is it did not.
I'm sure in WW2 we used some extreme methods. But then we did not have to worry about much, other than national survival, certainly not senate committees and adverse publicity which helps your supposed enemies.
It made me quite cross. Not cross enough to find myself siding with @LuckyPutinPuppet1983, but pretty cross.
The analysis you linked me to is fascinating.
The authors point out that immigrants bring with them the benefit of their education paid for by their home country. They estimate this amounts to £49 billion over 1995-2011. This is not included in their calculation in table 6.
They also say "In our analysis we consider immigrants’ children under the age of 16 as immigrants regardless of birth country but classify as natives everyone who is at least
16 and UK born, regardless of parents’ birthplace. This choice, it should be noted,
suggests that we are neglecting the contribution that these the children of immigrants
will make when they enter the labour market. [But they are counting their cost of education] Likewise, we are neglecting the costs of educating the immigrants themselves, which – other than the cost of educating thenative born workforce – has been borne not by British taxpayers but by taxpayers in the origin country. [The £49 billion referred to above].
Thus, while assigning to immigrants the cost of educating their
UK-born children, we are unable to assign to them the benefits that their children will
bring after leaving the education system and entering the labour market. In this sense,
all the results presented below are underestimates of immigrants’ net fiscal
contribution."
So overall their paper strongly suggests a net positive economic impact of immigration.
From your remarks I suspect that we both believe that immigration should be better managed by taking a more hard-headed cost benefit approach. However I am not emotionally engaged in the debate and would probably put the optimal net immigration target somewhat higher than you. I don't have a figure in mind.
But in defence of Tony Blair (words I rarely write), he and the Foreign Office presumably formed the view that someone had to act as a restraining influence on the US, or the world looked as though it would come under the sway of a unipolar hyperpower that paid no regard to the previously established rules of international law. Britain was uniquely well-placed to play that role.
Imagine a world where the USA had invaded Iraq by itself and the later reconstruction had been more of a success. Do you think that it would have stopped there?
Tony Blair sought to stabilise the world by tempering American passions, and did so at the expense of his own integrity, lying to get the nation's support of the invasion. Yet it proved to be unnecessary. In many ways, it is a story worthy of a Shakespearean tragedy.
So I'm glad I didn't.
Whichever side you are on, Al Qaeda is undoubtedly the winner here.
Labour signed the trreaty thus demonstrating their compliance with the EU.
Cameron does not want ever closer union he wants to renegotiate our place in the EU. He promises a referendum after negotiations.
The only phony based on the facts is you - you who are happy to act to see that pro-EU Miliband and his pro Eu party are elected. I stand happy in my disgust of you thank you very much.
Letter
Acronym
I think several studies have concluded that immigration is a (perhaps small) net positive to the host nation in terms of increased return on capital (as wages fall) and expanded GDP but that there is a section of the host population (namely those where there is competition with immigrants for jobs) which lose out immediately.
It is for these people that presumably the Kippers are standing up.
IMO they are not doing a very good job at articulating the actual dynamics involved, but then neither are the other parties.
I'm not sure of the political implications of saying something along the lines of: "you may have lost your job but don't worry it's for the greater good and anyway, when your ex-boss builds a new factory you may get a job there."
Probably not wildly positive.
Anyone who mentions 2001 will have a monolith put where no simian should encounter monolith.
People
Can't
Memorise
Computer
Industry
Acronyms
It probably wouldn't have made a difference but he should still have done the right thing.
My recollection is that European Leaders generally edged away from the US during that period, but 'Europe' was no more popular in this country then than it is now, so there would not have been many votes in aligning more with European Leaders. All the same, it would have been better for us and maybe even the US had he done so.
I hope someone buys you a dictionary for Christmas.
I rewatched 2001 at the cinema a few weeks ago.
Whilst Wrath of Khan is the best scifi film ever, 2001 and the Avengers Assemble are a close second.
I'm pb's resident geek. I know what I'm talking about.
That is all.
Forbidden Planet.
He may of course have had the best of intentions, and been disappointed to find how little impact his views had. In hindsite, it is obvious. But he was wrong, badly wrong, and his foreign policy in the post-Clinton years looks worse and worse with the passage of time.
But George Lucas ruined my childhood with his special editions.
Han fired first your bearded tosspot.
And the less said about episodes I to III
Awesome.
The numbers who died at the hands of the Gestapo or the Japanese security services were many orders of magnitude greater than those who died at the hands of the CIA, so I don't think it's worth comparing them.
That doesn't alter the fact that this report has revealed a scandal.
I'm one of the very few people who enjoyed David Lynch's version of Dune.
Not just morally wrong but stupid too.
I re-read the book quite recently too and was surprised just how good it was.