For all its problems, for all its ills, I am just so glad this country is the place I call home. When BJO touches down today with his family, he will feel a surge of emotion, a love even, for our rainy, argumentative, crotchety little island, and the safety and stability it delivers, that few of us have ever felt. From horror to glorious normality in four short hours. What sweet relief. Today - looking at this broken, dangerous world - I feel very lucky to live in the UK and to be British. We are a cup of tea, a digestive biscuit and an evening home in front of the telly. Right now that is so very comforting. Of course, we can make this country a lot better than it is. But we build from stronger foundations, on better land than almost everyone else. We all know that. Sometimes we forget. Today we should remember.
Good post. BJO will experience pure joy arriving in Doncaster.
@LadPolitics: Ladbrokes: odds-on that #Greece votes NO to bailout deal #referendum: 1/3 NO to deal 2/1 YES to deal
I couldn't find the terms of that bet and they'll be crucial.
There is a reasonable chance that the referendum doesn't take place at all, whether because some deal is done today, because one side caves in during the next week, or because the can is kicked down the road and halting the referendum is part of that deal. It's not probable but it's far from out of the question.
It's also possible that by next weekend there'll be more than one deal on the table, or possibly that there'll be no deal on the table. We have no idea exactly which deal the Greeks are being asked to vote on given that talks are still ongoing. (Ref the 'no available deal' option, the creditors could easily withdraw their current offer if Greece is already in arrears / default).
I would say that No is value were it not for the lack of wording in the question. At the moment, the assumption has to be that the government will campaign for No but there is the possibility of a last-minute volte face, if better terms can be extracted. That would lead to all sorts of repercussions in Greek internal politics which is one reason why I don't think it'll happen but if it did, Yes would suddenly look far more appealing. As usual, Shadsy has priced cannily.
For all its problems, for all its ills, I am just so glad this country is the place I call home. When BJO touches down today with his family, he will feel a surge of emotion, a love even, for our rainy, argumentative, crotchety little island, and the safety and stability it delivers, that few of us have ever felt. From horror to glorious normality in four short hours. What sweet relief. Today - looking at this broken, dangerous world - I feel very lucky to live in the UK and to be British. We are a cup of tea, a digestive biscuit and an evening home in front of the telly. Right now that is so very comforting. Of course, we can make this country a lot better than it is. But we build from stronger foundations, on better land than almost everyone else. We all know that. Sometimes we forget. Today we should remember.
That is completely false. The legal grounds for this are crystal clear and dozens of other courts had already made the same ruling. The 14th Amendment gives equal protection. That is clear.
Other cases like Loving v Virginia had decades ago settled that marriage is a right and this equal protection apples. Today's decision was the inevitable, legal and logical conclusion of that.
The decision in Obergefell v Hodges is principally justified by reference to the due process clause, not the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, although some attempt is made by the majority to justify the decision by reference to the latter (see the judgment of Kennedy J, at pp. 19-21 of the slip opinion). As the Chief Justice observes, the majority's fleeting reference to equal protection is incoherent and contrary to principle and precedent (see pp. 23-24 of the dissenting judgment).
Loving v Virginia and related cases offer no support for the majority's position, since they concerned statutory restrictions adopted by a state restricting the ambit of marriage at common law and/or criminal penalties for entering into marriage. Obergefell v Hodges is an attempt to change the definition of marriage itself, and is in a different league. As the Chief Justice observes at pp. 20-21 of the slip opinion, the logic of the majority's argument is that there is a constitutional right to polygamy.
That leaves the only basis for the majority's decision as "substantive due process", a doctrine which is either wrong in principle or to be narrowly construed. The majority's approach is plainly inconsistent with the leading modern authority, Washington v Glucksberg 521 US 702. It requires that the fundamental liberty claimed to be protected by the due process clause to be "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition". That obviously has no application in the present case.
Sorry but I think your last sentence is ridiculous. I can think of few traditions that are more deeply rooted in the (US) Nation's history than marriage.
What does that mean in practice? That if you vote to abolish the laws of gravity, we could all fly?
Gets elected to do X. Forced to negotiate Y. Has no mandate for Y, so puts it to the people. May end up doing Y or having to find a Z.
He's is going to need popular support regardless of X, Y or Z.
X = impossible corner Tsipras painted himself into before was even elected. Y = hole he has dug in his corner up to his neck to tunnel out of the corner he was painted into. Z = Grexit or new govt, which may be Tsipras in a bowler hat.
Meanwhile he's still demanding as far as I can see that people working to 65 or 70 in other countries pay for his pensioners to retire in the 50s.
I wonder why that should be accepted on top of well over 6 months spent insulting the people who he needs to build him an escape bridge?
I'd say that Tsipras forgot that the other 25 or so democracies have an equal right to an opinion.
What does that mean in practice? That if you vote to abolish the laws of gravity, we could all fly?
Gets elected to do X. Forced to negotiate Y. Has no mandate for Y, so puts it to the people. May end up doing Y or having to find a Z.
He's is going to need popular support regardless of X, Y or Z.
He's not really proposing a Z though. And X is unviable because he needs international consent for it, which isn't there. And he won't accept Y (nor will his party), so won't do that even if the Greeks vote for it (which they won't).
So in reality, there's no choice on the table for the Greek electorate, which is surely the antithesis of democracy.
Smart move by Tsipras. The Greeks want to have their cake and eat it. So he's letting them vote instead of deciding himself and pissing off loads of them whatever he does.
I guess they'll vote to stay in. And delay the inevitable a little longer.
But if they do, the problem won't go away, it'll just be kicked down the road.
The Greeks have been very badly let down by their leaders, by Europe's leaders, by the IMF and other creditors. At some stage, when you feel you have nothing left to lose, you end up shouting No More. It's the equivalent of Yokel's attacking the gunman when he gets into your hotel room. If you don't, you are dead. It's not the current Greek government's fault Greece joined the Euro, neither is it its fault that Troika-imposed austerity has done nothing but make things worse or that all IMF forecasts and projections have proved to be so disastrously wrong. The Eurozone countries - led by Germany and France - created this mess, not the Greek people or the current Greek government.
Mr. Herdson, my view is that the Greeks are desperate to stay in the euro, not least because they've gone through so much pain already that the psychological pressure to stay in and make the austerity worth it will be immense (also why I thought there was no chance of Miliband stepping down as leader).
There's also a tendency to opt for the status quo rather than go for something which might be deemed risky (as a certain David Cameron may also believe).
Mr. Observer, you let the Greeks off too lightly. They considered tax an optional extra and retired earlier than practically anyone else in Europe. Not to mention the demented decision to join the euro in the first place (although they weren't alone in that insanity).
Mr. Observer, you let the Greeks off too lightly. They considered tax an optional extra and retired earlier than practically anyone else in Europe. Not to mention the demented decision to join the euro in the first place (although they weren't alone in that insanity).
True - wealthy Greeks should also be put on the list. But most Greeks aren't and never were in that group. They were sold a bucket of lies. Their mistake was to believe them.
For all its problems, for all its ills, I am just so glad this country is the place I call home. When BJO touches down today with his family, he will feel a surge of emotion, a love even, for our rainy, argumentative, crotchety little island, and the safety and stability it delivers, that few of us have ever felt. From horror to glorious normality in four short hours. What sweet relief. Today - looking at this broken, dangerous world - I feel very lucky to live in the UK and to be British. We are a cup of tea, a digestive biscuit and an evening home in front of the telly. Right now that is so very comforting. Of course, we can make this country a lot better than it is. But we build from stronger foundations, on better land than almost everyone else. We all know that. Sometimes we forget. Today we should remember.
What does that mean in practice? That if you vote to abolish the laws of gravity, we could all fly?
Democracy is something unknown to the left in Britain. That's why they will never again be elected under a left wing ticket
According to Jonathan, its democratic if you win with 35.2% of the vote but unfair and undemocratic to get a majority with 37%
You therefore need to realise that in the world of the left Tory win=non democratic.... Labour win = democracy at work. ... will of the people etc etc
Aw bless. Just because I said the Tories weren't particularly popular.
ahem.. You never made those sort of comments when Labour were in power. You started talking a lot of rot (IIRC) in tems of votes cast v total voting population..
AS I said at the time lies lies and damned statistics.
BTW The Tories were popular enough to get a majority.. that's what matters. You have 5 yrs to get used to it.
What does that mean in practice? That if you vote to abolish the laws of gravity, we could all fly?
Gets elected to do X. Forced to negotiate Y. Has no mandate for Y, so puts it to the people. May end up doing Y or having to find a Z.
He's is going to need popular support regardless of X, Y or Z.
He's not really proposing a Z though. And X is unviable because he needs international consent for it, which isn't there. And he won't accept Y (nor will his party), so won't do that even if the Greeks vote for it (which they won't).
So in reality, there's no choice on the table for the Greek electorate, which is surely the antithesis of democracy.
Well its arguably better than the British solution.
Get elected to do X on Thursday, do the opposite of X the following week. Spend 5 years talking anything but X.. Hope people forget. At the next election promise Y and a tax cut.. Get elected, do the opposite of Y. Repeat.
What does that mean in practice? That if you vote to abolish the laws of gravity, we could all fly?
Democracy is something unknown to the left in Britain. That's why they will never again be elected under a left wing ticket
According to Jonathan, its democratic if you win with 35.2% of the vote but unfair and undemocratic to get a majority with 37%
You therefore need to realise that in the world of the left Tory win=non democratic.... Labour win = democracy at work. ... will of the people etc etc
Aw bless. Just because I said the Tories weren't particularly popular.
ahem.. You never made those sort of comments when Labour were in power. You started talking a lot of rot (IIRC) in tems of votes cast v total voting population..
AS I said at the time lies lies and damned statistics.
BTW The Tories were popular enough to get a majority.. that's what matters. You have 5 yrs to get used to it.
FWIW have long advocated electoral reform well before 2005.
As you are well aware the point about the size of vote wrt the overall population was to part explain the surprise some Tories feel when they venture outide the bubble onto the wider web.
I said sweet FA about Labour, who are clearly less popular than the Tories right now.
As for 5 years of Cameron, surely it will all be sweetness, motherhood and Apple pie?
Mr. Jonathan, "As you are well aware the point about the size of vote wrt the overall population was to part explain the surprise some Tories feel when they venture outide the bubble onto the wider web. "
That almost makes it sound like you think Twitter reflects what the People really think.
Mr. Jonathan, "As you are well aware the point about the size of vote wrt the overall population was to part explain the surprise some Tories feel when they venture outide the bubble onto the wider web. "
That almost makes it sound like you think Twitter reflects what the People really think.
Neither Twitter nor the Tories (or indeed any political party) reflect what the public really think. Right now I am contemplating bacon. :-)
Greece seems to be conforming to the standard EU playbook when it comes up against a democratic outcome it finds uncomfortable: "keep voting until we get an outcome we like".
Mr. Jonathan, I think you'll find the Morris Dancer Party reflects perfectly the desire of the British people for more trebuchets, school uniforms worn by attractive women aged 18-26, and the invasion of France.
"I feel very lucky to live in the UK and to be British. We are a cup of tea, a digestive biscuit and an evening home in front of the telly. Right now that is so very comforting. Of course, we can make this country a lot better than it is. But we build from stronger foundations, on better land than almost everyone else."
In our lucky country politics consists of one party insisting we can only afford rich tea biscuits, with the other promising chocolate digestives for all.
Mr. Observer, you let the Greeks off too lightly. They considered tax an optional extra and retired earlier than practically anyone else in Europe. Not to mention the demented decision to join the euro in the first place (although they weren't alone in that insanity).
It's hard to comprehend just how awful it must be for a society to see their standard of living drop by 30% in six years.
Smart move by Tsipras. The Greeks want to have their cake and eat it. So he's letting them vote instead of deciding himself and pissing off loads of them whatever he does.
I guess they'll vote to stay in. And delay the inevitable a little longer.
But if they do, the problem won't go away, it'll just be kicked down the road.
The Greeks have been very badly let down by their leaders, by Europe's leaders, by the IMF and other creditors. At some stage, when you feel you have nothing left to lose, you end up shouting No More. It's the equivalent of Yokel's attacking the gunman when he gets into your hotel room. If you don't, you are dead. It's not the current Greek government's fault Greece joined the Euro, neither is it its fault that Troika-imposed austerity has done nothing but make things worse or that all IMF forecasts and projections have proved to be so disastrously wrong. The Eurozone countries - led by Germany and France - created this mess, not the Greek people or the current Greek government.
The feeling of the institutions is that by their brinkmanship, prevarication, can-kicking and failure to implement structural reforms, successive Greek governments have stretched out the crisis but done little to deal with it, and this had only made the magnitude of the crisis worse. The hypocrisy is palpable - euro summits are hardly unknown for their brinkmanship and can-kicking, and as for the pace of EU reform the less said the better. But the analysis may have some truth in it. After running a deficit for so long, it is ridiculous that 1 in 3 work hours allegedly goes untaxed (no point finger pointing at the elite, this is a game plenty of folk are on). Spain bit a lot of bullets a lot earlier, and it was painful, but that country has made serious inroads to recovery (though it also has serious problems which persist). Ireland ditto. Greece has made hard choices fiscally - that they are capable of running a primary surplus suggests, if they were going to default, they would have benefited from doing so in an orderly way and much earlier!
I think the government there is hoping they get a gold star and a let-off for previous good behaviour, because Greece chose not to default earlier even though it had motive and opportunity. Creditors are less keen (though NB the IMF has repeatedly made clear something has to happen to make the debt pile sustainable even if it hurts the Europeans who are far less keen on that idea) partly because they are frustrated by the Greek record outside the fiscal area, and partly because they have little flexibility to be generous due to moral hazard.
To mimic everyone else, loved the digestive biscuits post. Top stuff SO.
They've suffered that huge decline, and now have to choose whether to take more, or leave the euro and (as some might see it) leap into the unknown.
Gangs have severe initiation rituals to try and emphasise how worth it/important joining is. If the Greeks vote No, it's like going through the pain of the ritual and then leaving the gang rather than joining it. That's why I think they'll vote Yes.
Mr. Mark, only true if there's a No and then a second vote.
Mr. Dancer, I was referring to the initial election of the Syriza Govt., with its mandate to take on and beat the EU. Presumably in the negotiations, the Greeks kept saying "We have no mandate from our voters to agree to that..." So the EU officials laughed at them and said "So get a different mandate..."
If what he wants to do were in line with his party's pre election rhetoric it would be perfectly democratic for him to do it without a referendum. Even taking me herdson's point about his party not being normal, or mainstream rather, that's why I presume either he cannot do what he needs to without additional public backing for it, or he doesn't want to make the decision and get blamed for it. The former makes political sense, the latter would just be cowardly. If he is recommending no then the whole thing is pointless, as he already won an election promising a tough line, a referendum to confirm that is not needed.
For all its problems, for all its ills, I am just so glad this country is the place I call home. When BJO touches down today with his family, he will feel a surge of emotion, a love even, for our rainy, argumentative, crotchety little island, and the safety and stability it delivers, that few of us have ever felt. From horror to glorious normality in four short hours. What sweet relief. Today - looking at this broken, dangerous world - I feel very lucky to live in the UK and to be British. We are a cup of tea, a digestive biscuit and an evening home in front of the telly. Right now that is so very comforting. Of course, we can make this country a lot better than it is. But we build from stronger foundations, on better land than almost everyone else. We all know that. Sometimes we forget. Today we should remember.
Chameleon That appears to be exactly what they want..perhaps they should be kept in an 8 x6 cell for the rest of their lives..and tell the judges to take a hike.
That leaves the only basis for the majority's decision as "substantive due process", a doctrine which is either wrong in principle or to be narrowly construed. The majority's approach is plainly inconsistent with the leading modern authority, Washington v Glucksberg 521 US 702. It requires that the fundamental liberty claimed to be protected by the due process clause to be "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition". That obviously has no application in the present case.
Sorry but I think your last sentence is ridiculous. I can think of few traditions that are more deeply rooted in the (US) Nation's history than marriage.
I always enjoy Market Town's posts as they are perfectly consistent and draw logical legal conclusions from a settled world view - precise logic is always a pleasure to see and one reason I studied mathematics. It is, however, a mistake to assert that any particular principle is equally held by everyone, e.g. "a doctrine which is either wrong in principle or to be narrowly construed".
What he means, I think, is that he disagrees with it and it is out of keeping with aspects of traditional interptation of American law that he likes. But the Supreme Court has plenty of precent for legal activism. I don't altogether approve either, and it's the main reason why I don't favour a strong written constitution - it leaves too much power to judges to overrule the legislature. But it's how America works, and has been for a long time now. Sometimes, as in this case, many of us like the outcome.
Chameleon That appears to be exactly what they want..perhaps they should be kept in an 8 x6 cell for the rest of their lives..and tell the judges to take a hike.
Can't help feeling this is another poor play from Greece who have consistently over estimated their position. My guess is that the Europeans will not go along with this farce and that ECB support for Greek banks will be withdrawn long before this happens closing down their banking network. Enough is enough and frankly the world has a lot more important things to worry about than the payment or otherwise of Greek pensions.
What we are seeing today are the consequences of the failure of the European establishment's economic, social and foreign policies. In Greece, Calais, North Africa, Kuwait, and Britain.
Tony Yates, ex Bank of England wonk and soon to be professor at Birmingham, has some very interesting posts about Greece on his economics blog https://longandvariable.wordpress.com/
Suggests that Greek pensioners may be best to vote for a deal even if it cuts their pension. There are other pieces about how well Greek primary surplus works as a bargaining chip, and on a rather cack handed intervention by someone at the Greek Central Bank.
ISIS must think we're as soft as clarts. And we are far too soft.
What can we do? what would you do?
I don't reckon there is anything we can do. This is 21st century Britain. We are reaping the rewards from decades of poor immigration and foreign policy
That leaves the only basis for the majority's decision as "substantive due process", a doctrine which is either wrong in principle or to be narrowly construed. The majority's approach is plainly inconsistent with the leading modern authority, Washington v Glucksberg 521 US 702. It requires that the fundamental liberty claimed to be protected by the due process clause to be "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition". That obviously has no application in the present case.
Sorry but I think your last sentence is ridiculous. I can think of few traditions that are more deeply rooted in the (US) Nation's history than marriage.
But the Supreme Court has plenty of precedent for legal activism. I don't altogether approve either, and it's the main reason why I don't favour a strong written constitution - it leaves too much power to judges to overrule the legislature. But it's how America works, and has been for a long time now.
Yes, that's what confuses me about some of the anger on this and other issues, as perhaps it's only on the big cases that I as a non-US citizen hear about, but I had thought the Supreme Court was all about judicial activism, and often explicitly partisanly political judicial activism at that. Sometimes more obviously than others, and granted even with them being political appointees expected to lean in certain directions they are not guaranteed to go one way on all issues, but they have always seemed intensely political and open about that I had thought.
What we are seeing today are the consequences of the failure of the European establishment's economic, social and foreign policies. In Greece, Calais, North Africa, Kuwait, and Britain.
Don;t count on that referendum being won.
The EU is a complete and total failure... The only surprise is that so many of the UK establishment is still so hung up over it...
David Cameron has, frankly, looked quite pathetic this week with his silly grovelling to the EUcrats and forcing HMQ to speak all that rubbish in Germany...
I'm confident the ever sensible Brit's will pull the plug in 2017... But we'll keep being asked until the return the "correct" answer.
In our lucky country politics consists of one party insisting we can only afford rich tea biscuits, with the other promising chocolate digestives for all.
Chocolate digestives for some, rich tea for others more like? I want to see angry youths marching shouting 'We are the rich teas(by which we mean the underprivileged, not the rich)'
Mr. Herdson, my view is that the Greeks are desperate to stay in the euro, not least because they've gone through so much pain already that the psychological pressure to stay in and make the austerity worth it will be immense (also why I thought there was no chance of Miliband stepping down as leader).
There's also a tendency to opt for the status quo rather than go for something which might be deemed risky (as a certain David Cameron may also believe).
The Greeks are indeed keen to stay in the Euro but the reasoning here is critical because it's that that's flawed.
The reason why they want the Euro is because the Drachma was weak and unreliable however that's a clear case of cart-before-horse thinking. The Euro is not intrinsically stronger than the Drachma but is so because the people and institutions in the Eurozone have made it thus - their historic and current records and attitudes.
To join the Eurozone without adopting the attitudes was always going to end in failure. Indeed, proponents of joining knew just that: their case was that the discipline of joining would force a change in attitude, which was where the mistake was. Unfortunately, the Greek public seem to still want to keep the same lifestyle and culture but expect the benefits of a stronger currency.
Now, the question is whether minds really will be focussed by the referendum and the imminent default. I'm far from convinced it will. There's a belief in Greece that they've done enough already - one fed by politicians but which is still tapping into a deep feeling. I can understand that. I can also understand the belief that Greeks are the victims and the faceless institutions the villains given the pain the country's been through - someone must be at fault and it's easier to lay blame there (not least because some blame does lie there) - but the belief is fundamentally false: Greece hasn't done enough. Its labour markets are too rigid, too many people dodge tax, too many public servants retire too early and pension provision is unaffordable.
However, your psychological phrasing of the question is correct: despite all that, will they vote Yes to legitimise their past sacrifice and avoid the abyss of the unknown?
I don't think they will. Partly that's because the government is itself legitimising a No and so downplaying the risks. If the government says it's OK then it can't be that bad can it? And voting for the government is voting for the status quo in one sense (and voting for a continuation of the pre-existing lifestyle and expectations in another). But also it's because there's a growing (and also incorrect) belief that a Yes will just prompt the IMF and EU to come back and ask for even more, rendering the exercise pointless and self-defeating. And if you're going to go down you might as well go down fighting.
What I think is key is the location of a UK based successful ISIS attack. We haven't had anything on a mass scale in quite a while.
Murdering 30 odd Brits in Tunisia is despite the horror - not here. If we are unlucky enough to experience another here - then I think an In vote is looking much less likely.
That leaves the only basis for the majority's decision as "substantive due process", a doctrine which is either wrong in principle or to be narrowly construed. The majority's approach is plainly inconsistent with the leading modern authority, Washington v Glucksberg 521 US 702. It requires that the fundamental liberty claimed to be protected by the due process clause to be "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition". That obviously has no application in the present case.
Sorry but I think your last sentence is ridiculous. I can think of few traditions that are more deeply rooted in the (US) Nation's history than marriage.
Well said. That marriage is a right protected by the 14th Amendment is not news, that was agreed not on a split decision but unanimously in Loving v Virginia as well as other precedence.
The case precedence on this matter were clearly in favour of yesterday's decision. At issue were two fundamental questions 1: Is marriage a right protected by the 14th Amendment. Yes, unanimously agreed decades ago in Loving. 2: Does the 14th Amendment protect gays. Yes, agreed 6-3 in Lawrence v Texas.
There is no way to reconcile this precedence with any outcome other than yesterday's decision - and the fact that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence personally made how he'd vote pretty obvious to me.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
So we have a KUWAIT airplane en route to Kuwait from the States.. has problems over Germany..which has a lot of big airports.requests to land in the UK..AND IS ALLOWED TO OVERFLY LONDON INTO HEATHROW..ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY..WHAAAT..
Reports are that there was food poisoning on board..
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
The most worrying thing about all of this is its starting to look all very Lehman's, where the US having saved Bear Stearns and Goldman's, decided to let LEH go to the wall to prove nobody was to big to fail. Even now 7 years on we're still sorting through the systemic mess, I'm sure the US would have saved LEH if they could go back in time.
Hopefully common sense will prevail. However, at the moment all parties seem to be choosing brinkmanship, sadly their all standing at different brinks.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
Cameron has at least on one occasion I can recall at least acknowledged groups like ISIS are 'poisoning' mainstream Islam, which at least acknowledges they are connected, but usually he toes the line. I think Douglas Murray in the Spectator speculates political leaders seem to worry the public are a lynch mob waiting to happen if they say anything else, but there comes a time when it just becomes counterproductive.
We vote OUT in 2017 before Cameron's renegotiation has been finalized.
Renegotiation continues and we have to vote again in 2018 or 2019...
This time IN win's.
#democracy
No chance. Out is out, the English do not put up with being asked the same question twice.
They're already being asked the same question a second time.
I've never been asked this question before, the last referendum was before I was born let alone of voting age. Arguably nobody ever has, as the entity discussed 40 years ago was not this one.
Mr. Gin, I think In will win fairly easily. But we'll see.
Mr. Herdson, it's a good point that the government backing No would lend it credibility. But support for the euro in Greece appears to be resilient as the Black Knight, and about as sensible.
Please do not be too worried about the state of the modern world at home. Far more people died in terrorism in the 1970s, 80s, 90s than so far in the UK in the last 10 years.
I think politicians were wise to be careful in their language - but after Rotherham et al and now Tunisia - it's become farcial and very reminiscent of *immigration isn't a big issue*
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
Cameron has at least on one occasion I can recall at least acknowledged groups like ISIS are 'poisoning' mainstream Islam, which at least acknowledges they are connected, but usually he toes the line. I think Douglas Murray in the Spectator speculates political leaders seem to worry the public are a lynch mob waiting to happen if they say anything else, but there comes a time when it just becomes counterproductive.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
I don't think that is likely or desirable really. We are too far down the line for that. Many people who have been born and raised in this country know nothing else but a land where mosques madrassa etc are commonplace and the people who are against them are racist islamaphobes.
I think, to coin a phrase, that shutting down places where millions of ordinary Muslims go to worship would be very provocative, divisive and 'throwing a match on to gunpowder'
Mr. kle4, indeed. Sooner or later, the situation either improves or a party (perhaps UKIP) will step away from the 'religion of peace' nonsense.
Saw most of the Sky paper review last night, and the guests rightly said there's no religion of peace, texts can be interpreted and acts justified in just about any way.
Mr. kle4, indeed. Sooner or later, the situation either improves or a party (perhaps UKIP) will step away from the 'religion of peace' nonsense.
Saw most of the Sky paper review last night, and the guests rightly said there's no religion of peace, texts can be interpreted and acts justified in just about any way.
Agreed with that 100%. The religion is, like Christianity, whatever a particular sect makes of it by cherrypicking whatever suits their own agenda.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
I mentioned something like this yesterday, glad to see I'm not going mad as the only person to feel we need to step up the anti-extremist measures.
The government needs to take a long hard look at its extremism prevention strategy and begin immediate deportation of preachers of violence without the right to appeal the verdict of a trial. If Strasbourg doesn't like it then they can go take a hike. We've put up with appeasement of these vile people for far too long and look where it has got us, the solution does not include "rehabilitation" of extremists barring exceptional circumstances like a willingness to cooperate with the SIS and bring down other extremists. Imprisonment and deportation is the only way to deal with them.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
I hope we never reach that point.
I very much hope we don't either but I think we are a lot closer than our MSM or political class think. You can't shut down "white people" but the change of attitude to Confederacy paraphanalia and symbols after that has been very marked and swift. And quite right too. A lot of self indulgence about a regime that was fundamentally evil has been addressed for the first time.
Miss Plato, not au fait with the civil war and its modern connotations. The only thing I'd say is excessive, that I've heard of, is Steam removing all games (reportedly) which include the confederate flag. Given it's a historical emblem as well as a matter for current events, that's as daft as removing all games with the Nazi flag.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
I mentioned something like this yesterday, glad to see I'm not going mad as the only person to feel we need to step up the anti-extremist measures.
The government needs to take a long hard look at its extremism prevention strategy and begin immediate deportation of preachers of violence without the right to appeal the verdict of a trial. If Strasbourg doesn't like it then they can go take a hike. We've put up with appeasement of these vile people for far too long and look where it has got us, the solution does not include "rehabilitation" of extremists barring exceptional circumstances like a willingness to cooperate with the SIS and bring down other extremists. Imprisonment and deportation is the only way to deal with them.
Tbh I hesitated about posting it. I just keep coming to the view that so many of our policies in these areas are completely delusional and based almost entirely on how we would like the world to be as opposed to how it is. I do wonder how long this can go on in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Mr. kle4, indeed. Sooner or later, the situation either improves or a party (perhaps UKIP) will step away from the 'religion of peace' nonsense.
Saw most of the Sky paper review last night, and the guests rightly said there's no religion of peace, texts can be interpreted and acts justified in just about any way.
The 'religion of peace' nonsense is an insult to the intelligence of the nation. It's as if Cameron thinks that if he didn't say it we would all go out lynching Muslims. I'm sure if someone felt like doing that they wouldn't be stopped by Cameron's words and most people just find it patronising
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
I think that shows how accurate a comparison it is actually. Though the confederate flag represents both treason against the US and being opposed to civil rights (more recently) and abolition of slavery (historically) so its about time its come down.
Comparing all Muslims to these terrorists is like comparing all white people to the Charleston attacker or comparing all Christians to Northern Irish terrorists. These individuals and their twisted ideology are horrific - as there are horrific individuals and twisted ideologies in all large groups.
Mr. kle4, indeed. Sooner or later, the situation either improves or a party (perhaps UKIP) will step away from the 'religion of peace' nonsense.
Saw most of the Sky paper review last night, and the guests rightly said there's no religion of peace, texts can be interpreted and acts justified in just about any way.
Agreed with that 100%. The religion is, like Christianity, whatever a particular sect makes of it by cherrypicking whatever suits their own agenda.
In most of our lifetimes, there has been massive Christian violence in Yugoslavia and Ireland, atheist violence in China, etc. These belief sets can all be interpreted to promote either peace or war - actually, look at religion in Japan; it used to promote militarism, now the religious people tend to be pacifist. Circumstances matter. As I said, your country has experience of dealing with terrorism. It turned out that internment, never mind shutting down churches, made the problem much worse because it made people rightly feel that the violence of a number of people was being used to do some very nasty (and one-sided) discrimination.
As for the other flag - as the woman in the Washington Post said - imagine seeing Nazi flags at a German war memorial, and what would we say about the people who hoisted them? At best, that they were selectively ignorant about their history.
Miss Plato, not au fait with the civil war and its modern connotations. The only thing I'd say is excessive, that I've heard of, is Steam removing all games (reportedly) which include the confederate flag. Given it's a historical emblem as well as a matter for current events, that's as daft as removing all games with the Nazi flag.
Germany has missed out (if they wanted it of course) on a lot of WW2 games that couldn't be released there for that reason I suppose.
I think there was also a game at the start of the Modern Shooter resurgence that had the Taliban as a faction, renamed after outcry to 'opposing force', but I don't know if anywhere, even Germany, as had a game released with the Nazi's reskinned into supposedly being someone else.
ISIS must think we're as soft as clarts. And we are far too soft.
What can we do? what would you do?
Much of the Muslim community works on a system of patronage. A small number of "community leaders" have been the interface with local and national Govt. In return, they have become hugely influential (and in some cases, very rich) on the back of that interface.
What the Govt. has not done is require a meaningful quid pro quo from these leaders. So...you call in all of those "community leaders". And you tell them that they are thanked for their service in the past. But they have proved wholly incapable of instilling integration of their communities into the accepted norms of UK society. In future, the UK Govt. will only work with those who actively promote security in the UK, who promote the respect of and education for women, who actively work to end forced marriages, FGM. Of those who condemn and point out those in the grooming gangs. Etc. etc. etc.
And top priority is an end to the way in which too many in the Muslim community talk through both sides of their mouth, seemingly appalled at outrages in the name of their faith, but within their own community not condemning those who engage in that activity.
Let it be known we as a Govt. will only acknowledge as community leaders those who get up at Friday prayers and say that those who engage in jihad are not going to get their allotted virgins as reward; instead, they are going to face an eternity of hellfire. We will work with those community leaders who work with MI5 to bring potential terrorists to their attention. And this new type of community leader will be rewarded like never before....
I suspect that some of the current crop of community leaders would overnight start to become more like the integrated Brits we need for our national security and for settled, peaceful, integrated Muslim communities that this country can be proud to host.
Miss Plato, not au fait with the civil war and its modern connotations. The only thing I'd say is excessive, that I've heard of, is Steam removing all games (reportedly) which include the confederate flag. Given it's a historical emblem as well as a matter for current events, that's as daft as removing all games with the Nazi flag.
Apple have done that, Steam haven't. Though Germany bans the swastika in law so many WWII games like Paradox Games' Hearts of Iron series for one don't include the Nazi flag as a result. Even though they could just release an altered game for the German market.
Please do not be too worried about the state of the modern world at home. Far more people died in terrorism in the 1970s, 80s, 90s than so far in the UK in the last 10 years.
That's a false comparison.
On the one hand, the IRA and other N Irish terrorists were better co-ordinated and 'professional' but on the other, their goals were always political and hence their methods were limited. While that meant more attacks and a higher proportion of successful attacks, it also meant that those attacks were (largely) aimed at irritating the British public into submission (the early 1970s were an exception). Things were different in N Ireland itself but even there, there were understood rules.
The threat from Islamic terrorism is of a wholly different nature. Firstly, it's far more amorphous. There aren't just one or two disciplined groups but also many lone sympathisers. Secondly, these people have no limit to the amount of death or damage they want to do. No warning codes here, no PR game, no means to an end: the goal is to crush Western culture. The attack on the Twin Towers remains the most potent example: as many people died in that one atrocity as in the whole of the Troubles. Given the opportunity to do it again - or to do something even bigger - they would. After all, even the 7/7 bombings here were more deadly than any act any of the Irish groups carried out.
Fortunately, most amateur terrorists lack that the capacity to mount extremely deadly attacks but we shouldn't let that lull us into believing that they couldn't happen.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
What will it take to shut down all white people based on Charleston's attack last week?
I hope we never reach that point.
I very much hope we don't either but I think we are a lot closer than our MSM or political class think. You can't shut down "white people" but the change of attitude to Confederacy paraphanalia and symbols after that has been very marked and swift. And quite right too. A lot of self indulgence about a regime that was fundamentally evil has been addressed for the first time.
To be fair a lot of the flag issue has been dealt with. When I lived in Atlanta in the 70's the state flag was 3/4 the Confederate battle flag, and the South Carolina flag was the Confederate battle flag. Both were changed in the last couple of decades. No one would make the "Dukes of Hazzard" now with the Battle flag on the car roof.
What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
I don't think that is likely or desirable really. We are too far down the line for that. Many people who have been born and raised in this country know nothing else but a land where mosques madrassa etc are commonplace and the people who are against them are racist islamaphobes.
I think, to coin a phrase, that shutting down places where millions of ordinary Muslims go to worship would be very provocative, divisive and 'throwing a match on to gunpowder'
I'm with you on this one, at the end of the day such a move would no doubt radicalise many more people than it would prevent and make the security services job much harder as everything would be underground.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
I think that shows how accurate a comparison it is actually. Though the confederate flag represents both treason against the US and being opposed to civil rights (more recently) and abolition of slavery (historically) so its about time its come down.
Comparing all Muslims to these terrorists is like comparing all white people to the Charleston attacker or comparing all Christians to Northern Irish terrorists. These individuals and their twisted ideology are horrific - as there are horrific individuals and twisted ideologies in all large groups.
I agree with that but the accuracy of the analogy for me is that it shows how quickly things can change. Whites in Charleston have broadly supported the retention of these symbols for generations blithely ignoring the insult they are to 30% of their population. Suddenly they are no longer minded to do so, the underlying evil having been exposed.
Mr. kle4, indeed. Sooner or later, the situation either improves or a party (perhaps UKIP) will step away from the 'religion of peace' nonsense.
Saw most of the Sky paper review last night, and the guests rightly said there's no religion of peace, texts can be interpreted and acts justified in just about any way.
Agreed with that 100%. The religion is, like Christianity, whatever a particular sect makes of it by cherrypicking whatever suits their own agenda.
In most of our lifetimes, there has been massive Christian violence in Yugoslavia and Ireland, atheist violence in China, etc. These belief sets can all be interpreted to promote either peace or war - actually, look at religion in Japan; it used to promote militarism, now the religious people tend to be pacifist. Circumstances matter. As I said, your country has experience of dealing with terrorism. It turned out that internment, never mind shutting down churches, made the problem much worse because it made people rightly feel that the violence of a number of people was being used to do some very nasty (and one-sided) discrimination.
As for the other flag - as the woman in the Washington Post said - imagine seeing Nazi flags at a German war memorial, and what would we say about the people who hoisted them? At best, that they were selectively ignorant about their history.
ISIS must think we're as soft as clarts. And we are far too soft.
What can we do? what would you do?
Much of the Muslim community works on a system of patronage. A small number of "community leaders" have been the interface with local and national Govt. In return, they have become hugely influential (and in some cases, very rich) on the back of that interface.
What the Govt. has not done is require a meaningful quid pro quo from these leaders. So...you call in all of those "community leaders". And you tell them that they are thanked for their service in the past. But they have proved wholly incapable of instilling integration of their communities into the accepted norms of UK society. In future, the UK Govt. will only work with those who actively promote security in the UK, who promote the respect of and education for women, who actively work to end forced marriages, FGM. Of those who condemn and point out those in the grooming gangs. Etc. etc. etc.
And top priority is an end to the way in which too many in the Muslim community talk through both sides of their mouth, seemingly appalled at outrages in the name of their faith, but within their own community not condemning those who engage in that activity.
Let it be known we as a Govt. will only acknowledge as community leaders those who get up at Friday prayers and say that those who engage in jihad are not going to get their allotted virgins as reward; instead, they are going to face an eternity of hellfire. We will work with those community leaders who work with MI5 to bring potential terrorists to their attention. And this new type of community leader will be rewarded like never before....
I suspect that some of the current crop of community leaders would overnight start to become more like the integrated Brits we need for our national security and for settled, peaceful, integrated Muslim communities that this country can be proud to host.
Ukips Gerard Batten proposed that Muslim spokesman sign a charter that declared they were anti jihad etc about five years ago
Mr. Thompson, I agree entirely on this not being about all Muslims/Islam, but it is true of a dangerously large proportion (even if that's a small minority by numbers). The threat's growing rather than receding, and that's partly because of the weakness and complacency of the West, as epitomised by turning the other cheek because it was only white girls and boys being raped, and doing something about it might've 'stirred up tensions'.
Mr. EPG, point of order: atheists (or agnostics, for that matter) can't be grouped together like pro-religious beliefs can, because there's no unifying leader/sacred text/belief system.
Mr. kle4, I think I had of at least one of those games you mentioned not being permitted in Germany. I hope that stops, as they get over the long legacy of guilt.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Thompson (2), cheers for the correction.
Please do not be too worried about the state of the modern world at home. Far more people died in terrorism in the 1970s, 80s, 90s than so far in the UK in the last 10 years.
That's a false comparison.
On the one hand, the IRA and other N Irish terrorists were better co-ordinated and 'professional' but on the other, their goals were always political and hence their methods were limited. While that meant more attacks and a higher proportion of successful attacks, it also meant that those attacks were (largely) aimed at irritating the British public into submission (the early 1970s were an exception). Things were different in N Ireland itself but even there, there were understood rules.
The threat from Islamic terrorism is of a wholly different nature. Firstly, it's far more amorphous. There aren't just one or two disciplined groups but also many lone sympathisers. Secondly, these people have no limit to the amount of death or damage they want to do. No warning codes here, no PR game, no means to an end: the goal is to crush Western culture. The attack on the Twin Towers remains the most potent example: as many people died in that one atrocity as in the whole of the Troubles. Given the opportunity to do it again - or to do something even bigger - they would. After all, even the 7/7 bombings here were more deadly than any act any of the Irish groups carried out.
Fortunately, most amateur terrorists lack that the capacity to mount extremely deadly attacks but we shouldn't let that lull us into believing that they couldn't happen.
Far more UK citizens died in 70s terrorism than in 05-15. It's wrong to call this "irritating"; I wonder what Mike Jackson would say. I genuinely think it's because they died in Ireland that this stream of violence is forgotten about or minimised.
ISIS must think we're as soft as clarts. And we are far too soft.
What can we do? what would you do?
Much of the Muslim community works on a system of patronage. A small number of "community leaders" have been the interface with local and national Govt. In return, they have become hugely influential (and in some cases, very rich) on the back of that interface.
What the Govt. has not done is require a meaningful quid pro quo from these leaders. So...you call in all of those "community leaders". And you tell them that they are thanked for their service in the past. But they have proved wholly incapable of instilling integration of their communities into the accepted norms of UK society. In future, the UK Govt. will only work with those who actively promote security in the UK, who promote the respect of and education for women, who actively work to end forced marriages, FGM. Of those who condemn and point out those in the grooming gangs. Etc. etc. etc.
And top priority is an end to the way in which too many in the Muslim community talk through both sides of their mouth, seemingly appalled at outrages in the name of their faith, but within their own community not condemning those who engage in that activity.
Let it be known we as a Govt. will only acknowledge as community leaders those who get up at Friday prayers and say that those who engage in jihad are not going to get their allotted virgins as reward; instead, they are going to face an eternity of hellfire. We will work with those community leaders who work with MI5 to bring potential terrorists to their attention. And this new type of community leader will be rewarded like never before....
I suspect that some of the current crop of community leaders would overnight start to become more like the integrated Brits we need for our national security and for settled, peaceful, integrated Muslim communities that this country can be proud to host.
Ukips Gerard Batten proposed that Muslim spokesman sign a charter that declared they were anti jihad etc about five years ago
How do you think that went down on here and in the guardian?
Maybe we will have to wait until a centrist Tory suggests it...as you just have... Before its ok to agree
Of course, Eric Pickles tried something similar and was told by those same self-selecting mouthpieces to "eff off". So change the mouthpieces.
ISIS must think we're as soft as clarts. And we are far too soft.
What can we do? what would you do?
Much of the Muslim community works on a system of patronage. A small number of "community leaders" have been the interface with local and national Govt. In return, they have become hugely influential (and in some cases, very rich) on the back of that interface.
The entire notion of "community leaders" is backwards thinking.
Most normal Muslims I know have as little to do with these so-called "community leaders" as most workers I know have as little to do with Len McCluskey.
We should do away with notions of community leaders altogether and start treating everyone as individuals.
Mr. Thompson, I agree entirely on this not being about all Muslims/Islam, but it is true of a dangerously large proportion (even if that's a small minority by numbers). The threat's growing rather than receding, and that's partly because of the weakness and complacency of the West, as epitomised by turning the other cheek because it was only white girls and boys being raped, and doing something about it might've 'stirred up tensions'.
Mr. EPG, point of order: atheists (or agnostics, for that matter) can't be grouped together like pro-religious beliefs can, because there's no unifying leader/sacred text/belief system.
Mr. kle4, I think I had of at least one of those games you mentioned not being permitted in Germany. I hope that stops, as they get over the long legacy of guilt.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Thompson (2), cheers for the correction.
Yes indeed, let's stick to belief sets. Let us say atheistic Communism killed millions of people, instead.
'What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?'
Bearing in mind the French terrorist was known to police in France as an extremist but was still allowed to make deliveries to the gas plant (presumably PC gone mad),we need to take a very close look at who is working at our airports and other high risk areas.
A ban on any further immigration from muslim countries until the existing population is fully integrated and the killing stops.
The softly softly,nothing to do with religion guff is clearly not working, the protection and safety of the 95% majority citizens must be given priority for a change and not the sensitivities of the minority who are unable or unwilling to do anything about the nutters in their community.
Mr. Thompson, very unfair comparison, given the confederate flag is being taken down left, right and centre in response.
Would you be appalled at an anti-Swastika hysteria?
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
Mr. kle4, indeed. Sooner or later, the situation either improves or a party (perhaps UKIP) will step away from the 'religion of peace' nonsense.
Saw most of the Sky paper review last night, and the guests rightly said there's no religion of peace, texts can be interpreted and acts justified in just about any way.
Agreed with that 100%. The religion is, like Christianity, whatever a particular sect makes of it by cherrypicking whatever suits their own agenda.
In most of our lifetimes, there has been massive Christian violence in Yugoslavia and Ireland, atheist violence in China, etc. These belief sets can all be interpreted to promote either peace or war - actually, look at religion in Japan; it used to promote militarism, now the religious people tend to be pacifist. Circumstances matter. As I said, your country has experience of dealing with terrorism. It turned out that internment, never mind shutting down churches, made the problem much worse because it made people rightly feel that the violence of a number of people was being used to do some very nasty (and one-sided) discrimination.
As for the other flag - as the woman in the Washington Post said - imagine seeing Nazi flags at a German war memorial, and what would we say about the people who hoisted them? At best, that they were selectively ignorant about their history.
Nonsense - and dangerous nonsense. There is no Christian equivalent of ISIS, Boko Haram or AQ or their equivalent fanatic fellow travellers and to pretend otherwise is to miss the fundamental danger of Islamism to Liberal values.
ISIS must think we're as soft as clarts. And we are far too soft.
What can we do? what would you do?
Much of the Muslim community works on a system of patronage. A small number of "community leaders" have been the interface with local and national Govt. In return, they have become hugely influential (and in some cases, very rich) on the back of that interface.
The entire notion of "community leaders" is backwards thinking.
Most normal Muslims I know have as little to do with these so-called "community leaders" as most workers I know have as little to do with Len McCluskey.
We should do away with notions of community leaders altogether and start treating everyone as individuals.
Miss Plato, not au fait with the civil war and its modern connotations. The only thing I'd say is excessive, that I've heard of, is Steam removing all games (reportedly) which include the confederate flag. Given it's a historical emblem as well as a matter for current events, that's as daft as removing all games with the Nazi flag.
Apple have done that, Steam haven't. Though Germany bans the swastika in law so many WWII games like Paradox Games' Hearts of Iron series for one don't include the Nazi flag as a result. Even though they could just release an altered game for the German market.
Actually Apple have done exactly that. They have withdrawn all computer games dealing with the Civil War from their app store because of the presence of the Confederate flag. They have bowed over the last 24 hours to pressure and reinstated a few that people shouted about most loudly but they are still banning many games.
It is a facile, stupid and ignorant move - just as the banning of any historic Confederate flag is akin to banning the English flag because a few morons from the far right make use of it.
David Aaronovitch did an excellent piece on this subject a few weeks ago. He called it a cop out to abdicate responsibility to these unelected mouth-pieces who have an agenda of their own.
ISIS must think we're as soft as clarts. And we are far too soft.
What can we do? what would you do?
Much of the Muslim community works on a system of patronage. A small number of "community leaders" have been the interface with local and national Govt. In return, they have become hugely influential (and in some cases, very rich) on the back of that interface.
The entire notion of "community leaders" is backwards thinking.
Most normal Muslims I know have as little to do with these so-called "community leaders" as most workers I know have as little to do with Len McCluskey.
We should do away with notions of community leaders altogether and start treating everyone as individuals.
Comments
BJO will experience pure joy arriving in Doncaster.
There is a reasonable chance that the referendum doesn't take place at all, whether because some deal is done today, because one side caves in during the next week, or because the can is kicked down the road and halting the referendum is part of that deal. It's not probable but it's far from out of the question.
It's also possible that by next weekend there'll be more than one deal on the table, or possibly that there'll be no deal on the table. We have no idea exactly which deal the Greeks are being asked to vote on given that talks are still ongoing. (Ref the 'no available deal' option, the creditors could easily withdraw their current offer if Greece is already in arrears / default).
I would say that No is value were it not for the lack of wording in the question. At the moment, the assumption has to be that the government will campaign for No but there is the possibility of a last-minute volte face, if better terms can be extracted. That would lead to all sorts of repercussions in Greek internal politics which is one reason why I don't think it'll happen but if it did, Yes would suddenly look far more appealing. As usual, Shadsy has priced cannily.
Y = hole he has dug in his corner up to his neck to tunnel out of the corner he was painted into.
Z = Grexit or new govt, which may be Tsipras in a bowler hat.
Meanwhile he's still demanding as far as I can see that people working to 65 or 70 in other countries pay for his pensioners to retire in the 50s.
I wonder why that should be accepted on top of well over 6 months spent insulting the people who he needs to build him an escape bridge?
I'd say that Tsipras forgot that the other 25 or so democracies have an equal right to an opinion.
Referendum? No idea at all.
So in reality, there's no choice on the table for the Greek electorate, which is surely the antithesis of democracy.
There's also a tendency to opt for the status quo rather than go for something which might be deemed risky (as a certain David Cameron may also believe).
AS I said at the time lies lies and damned statistics.
BTW
The Tories were popular enough to get a majority.. that's what matters. You have 5 yrs to get used to it.
Well its arguably better than the British solution.
Get elected to do X on Thursday, do the opposite of X the following week. Spend 5 years talking anything but X.. Hope people forget. At the next election promise Y and a tax cut.. Get elected, do the opposite of Y. Repeat.
As you are well aware the point about the size of vote wrt the overall population was to part explain the surprise some Tories feel when they venture outide the bubble onto the wider web.
I said sweet FA about Labour, who are clearly less popular than the Tories right now.
As for 5 years of Cameron, surely it will all be sweetness, motherhood and Apple pie?
That almost makes it sound like you think Twitter reflects what the People really think.
In our lucky country politics consists of one party insisting we can only afford rich tea biscuits, with the other promising chocolate digestives for all.
I think the government there is hoping they get a gold star and a let-off for previous good behaviour, because Greece chose not to default earlier even though it had motive and opportunity. Creditors are less keen (though NB the IMF has repeatedly made clear something has to happen to make the debt pile sustainable even if it hurts the Europeans who are far less keen on that idea) partly because they are frustrated by the Greek record outside the fiscal area, and partly because they have little flexibility to be generous due to moral hazard.
To mimic everyone else, loved the digestive biscuits post. Top stuff SO.
They've suffered that huge decline, and now have to choose whether to take more, or leave the euro and (as some might see it) leap into the unknown.
Gangs have severe initiation rituals to try and emphasise how worth it/important joining is. If the Greeks vote No, it's like going through the pain of the ritual and then leaving the gang rather than joining it. That's why I think they'll vote Yes.
Just dreadful.
What he means, I think, is that he disagrees with it and it is out of keeping with aspects of traditional interptation of American law that he likes. But the Supreme Court has plenty of precent for legal activism. I don't altogether approve either, and it's the main reason why I don't favour a strong written constitution - it leaves too much power to judges to overrule the legislature. But it's how America works, and has been for a long time now. Sometimes, as in this case, many of us like the outcome.
What can we do? what would you do?
Though I don't see how the ECB can keep the Greek banks alive for another fortnight if Tsipras rejects the bailout today.
But if it does and there's a "No" vote then default must follow.
Don;t count on that referendum being won.
We vote OUT in 2017 before Cameron's renegotiation has been finalized.
Renegotiation continues and we have to vote again in 2018 or 2019...
This time IN win's.
#democracy
https://longandvariable.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/cost-benefit-analysis-of-default-for-your-typical-greel-public-sector-dependent/
Suggests that Greek pensioners may be best to vote for a deal even if it cuts their pension. There are other pieces about how well Greek primary surplus works as a bargaining chip, and on a rather cack handed intervention by someone at the Greek Central Bank.
David Cameron has, frankly, looked quite pathetic this week with his silly grovelling to the EUcrats and forcing HMQ to speak all that rubbish in Germany...
I'm confident the ever sensible Brit's will pull the plug in 2017... But we'll keep being asked until the return the "correct" answer.
Indeed.
The reason why they want the Euro is because the Drachma was weak and unreliable however that's a clear case of cart-before-horse thinking. The Euro is not intrinsically stronger than the Drachma but is so because the people and institutions in the Eurozone have made it thus - their historic and current records and attitudes.
To join the Eurozone without adopting the attitudes was always going to end in failure. Indeed, proponents of joining knew just that: their case was that the discipline of joining would force a change in attitude, which was where the mistake was. Unfortunately, the Greek public seem to still want to keep the same lifestyle and culture but expect the benefits of a stronger currency.
Now, the question is whether minds really will be focussed by the referendum and the imminent default. I'm far from convinced it will. There's a belief in Greece that they've done enough already - one fed by politicians but which is still tapping into a deep feeling. I can understand that. I can also understand the belief that Greeks are the victims and the faceless institutions the villains given the pain the country's been through - someone must be at fault and it's easier to lay blame there (not least because some blame does lie there) - but the belief is fundamentally false: Greece hasn't done enough. Its labour markets are too rigid, too many people dodge tax, too many public servants retire too early and pension provision is unaffordable.
However, your psychological phrasing of the question is correct: despite all that, will they vote Yes to legitimise their past sacrifice and avoid the abyss of the unknown?
I don't think they will. Partly that's because the government is itself legitimising a No and so downplaying the risks. If the government says it's OK then it can't be that bad can it? And voting for the government is voting for the status quo in one sense (and voting for a continuation of the pre-existing lifestyle and expectations in another). But also it's because there's a growing (and also incorrect) belief that a Yes will just prompt the IMF and EU to come back and ask for even more, rendering the exercise pointless and self-defeating. And if you're going to go down you might as well go down fighting.
Madness? Yes, but this is Syriza.
Murdering 30 odd Brits in Tunisia is despite the horror - not here. If we are unlucky enough to experience another here - then I think an In vote is looking much less likely.
The case precedence on this matter were clearly in favour of yesterday's decision. At issue were two fundamental questions
1: Is marriage a right protected by the 14th Amendment. Yes, unanimously agreed decades ago in Loving.
2: Does the 14th Amendment protect gays. Yes, agreed 6-3 in Lawrence v Texas.
There is no way to reconcile this precedence with any outcome other than yesterday's decision - and the fact that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence personally made how he'd vote pretty obvious to me.
There are surely only so many times our politicians can say that this is a peaceful religion without endangering their own safety. My guess is that someone like France may go down this road first but if they did would we be far behind?
My liberal sensibilities are being tested to the limits by these lunatics.
Reports are that there was food poisoning on board..
Frankly, I've had quite enough and don't want to hear it again.
The most worrying thing about all of this is its starting to look all very Lehman's, where the US having saved Bear Stearns and Goldman's, decided to let LEH go to the wall to prove nobody was to big to fail. Even now 7 years on we're still sorting through the systemic mess, I'm sure the US would have saved LEH if they could go back in time.
Hopefully common sense will prevail. However, at the moment all parties seem to be choosing brinkmanship, sadly their all standing at different brinks.
Mr. Herdson, it's a good point that the government backing No would lend it credibility. But support for the euro in Greece appears to be resilient as the Black Knight, and about as sensible.
I hope we never reach that point.
I think, to coin a phrase, that shutting down places where millions of ordinary Muslims go to worship would be very provocative, divisive and 'throwing a match on to gunpowder'
Saw most of the Sky paper review last night, and the guests rightly said there's no religion of peace, texts can be interpreted and acts justified in just about any way.
The government needs to take a long hard look at its extremism prevention strategy and begin immediate deportation of preachers of violence without the right to appeal the verdict of a trial. If Strasbourg doesn't like it then they can go take a hike. We've put up with appeasement of these vile people for far too long and look where it has got us, the solution does not include "rehabilitation" of extremists barring exceptional circumstances like a willingness to cooperate with the SIS and bring down other extremists. Imprisonment and deportation is the only way to deal with them.
Comparing all Muslims to these terrorists is like comparing all white people to the Charleston attacker or comparing all Christians to Northern Irish terrorists. These individuals and their twisted ideology are horrific - as there are horrific individuals and twisted ideologies in all large groups.
As for the other flag - as the woman in the Washington Post said - imagine seeing Nazi flags at a German war memorial, and what would we say about the people who hoisted them? At best, that they were selectively ignorant about their history.
I think there was also a game at the start of the Modern Shooter resurgence that had the Taliban as a faction, renamed after outcry to 'opposing force', but I don't know if anywhere, even Germany, as had a game released with the Nazi's reskinned into supposedly being someone else.
What the Govt. has not done is require a meaningful quid pro quo from these leaders. So...you call in all of those "community leaders". And you tell them that they are thanked for their service in the past. But they have proved wholly incapable of instilling integration of their communities into the accepted norms of UK society. In future, the UK Govt. will only work with those who actively promote security in the UK, who promote the respect of and education for women, who actively work to end forced marriages, FGM. Of those who condemn and point out those in the grooming gangs. Etc. etc. etc.
And top priority is an end to the way in which too many in the Muslim community talk through both sides of their mouth, seemingly appalled at outrages in the name of their faith, but within their own community not condemning those who engage in that activity.
Let it be known we as a Govt. will only acknowledge as community leaders those who get up at Friday prayers and say that those who engage in jihad are not going to get their allotted virgins as reward; instead, they are going to face an eternity of hellfire. We will work with those community leaders who work with MI5 to bring potential terrorists to their attention. And this new type of community leader will be rewarded like never before....
I suspect that some of the current crop of community leaders would overnight start to become more like the integrated Brits we need for our national security and for settled, peaceful, integrated Muslim communities that this country can be proud to host.
Also think Southamobserver's post about the UK is superb.
On the one hand, the IRA and other N Irish terrorists were better co-ordinated and 'professional' but on the other, their goals were always political and hence their methods were limited. While that meant more attacks and a higher proportion of successful attacks, it also meant that those attacks were (largely) aimed at irritating the British public into submission (the early 1970s were an exception). Things were different in N Ireland itself but even there, there were understood rules.
The threat from Islamic terrorism is of a wholly different nature. Firstly, it's far more amorphous. There aren't just one or two disciplined groups but also many lone sympathisers. Secondly, these people have no limit to the amount of death or damage they want to do. No warning codes here, no PR game, no means to an end: the goal is to crush Western culture. The attack on the Twin Towers remains the most potent example: as many people died in that one atrocity as in the whole of the Troubles. Given the opportunity to do it again - or to do something even bigger - they would. After all, even the 7/7 bombings here were more deadly than any act any of the Irish groups carried out.
Fortunately, most amateur terrorists lack that the capacity to mount extremely deadly attacks but we shouldn't let that lull us into believing that they couldn't happen.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/04/ukip-mep-gerard-batten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence
How do you think that went down on here and in the guardian?
Maybe we will have to wait until a centrist Tory suggests it...as you just have... Before its ok to agree
Mr. EPG, point of order: atheists (or agnostics, for that matter) can't be grouped together like pro-religious beliefs can, because there's no unifying leader/sacred text/belief system.
Mr. kle4, I think I had of at least one of those games you mentioned not being permitted in Germany. I hope that stops, as they get over the long legacy of guilt.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Thompson (2), cheers for the correction.
Most normal Muslims I know have as little to do with these so-called "community leaders" as most workers I know have as little to do with Len McCluskey.
We should do away with notions of community leaders altogether and start treating everyone as individuals.
'What would it take for the UK to shut down every mosque madrassa and religious school in the country? Is this possible. under any scenario that we can conceive of?'
Bearing in mind the French terrorist was known to police in France as an extremist but was still allowed to make deliveries to the gas plant (presumably PC gone mad),we need to take a very close look at who is working at our airports and other high risk areas.
A ban on any further immigration from muslim countries until the existing population is fully integrated and the killing stops.
The softly softly,nothing to do with religion guff is clearly not working, the protection and safety of the 95% majority citizens must be given priority for a change and not the sensitivities of the minority who are unable or unwilling to do anything about the nutters in their community.
Fact is that the Confederate flag is a deeply potent symbol which is at root one of racial supremacy. It was about the right to keep a race enslaved, first literally then - after defeat in 1865 - practically. With the Jim Crow era fading into history, that might become less potent in due course but as long as people believe it to be so, that flag will remains a symbol of rebellion against the state, of rejecting the legitimacy of laws that one doesn't like and of the right of one people to keep another in chains.
It has no place of pride in any civilised country.
It is a facile, stupid and ignorant move - just as the banning of any historic Confederate flag is akin to banning the English flag because a few morons from the far right make use of it.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/26/apple-reinstates-select-games-with-confederate-flag-art-to-ios-app-store