politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave’s European Challenge has become very big and very real

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave’s European Challenge has become very big and very real

Selling the deal to the country was always going to be the easy bit. The tough ask for David Cameron is selling it to his party. The outcome of this week’s summit is, in that sense, one step forwards and two steps back. Simply getting the issue formally into the EU’s ongoing agenda was an achievement but one that is heavily diluted by the acceptance that there’ll be no treaty change.

Read the full story here

GeoffM

First!

kle4

I always figured either he'd lose and be forced out, or he'd win, declare job done as PM but that it was time for a new leader to take the party forward from what had been a difficult time, and so he'd stand down in a year or something afterwards.

TheWhiteRabbit

The Greek bailout vote contains two options an electorate is generally loathe to do: no to the deal, risk their own lifestyle and savings; or yes to the deal, and raise their own taxes and cut their own pensions. Quite the dilemma.

Philip_Thompson

I think this is an excellent analysis and like your split of open-minded "pragmatists" and "sceptics" rather than hard-set people on the extremes. I'd class myself as a pragmatist - the EU has its flaws but is (just about) worth being a member of, but it could and should be improved.

There is an opportunity here to lance the boil of Europe. The issue has dragged on long enough and I think the bulk in the middle want to find a solution that suits everyone (barring Ken Clarke on one side and a few extremes on the other side).

As for Cameron, this issue is bigger than Cameron. Whether Cameron goes in 2017, 2018 or 2019 is not that important in the grand scheme of things. Whether this issue can reach a satisfactory conclusion does matter.

Life_ina_market_town

FPT

Richard_Tyndall said:

No. The institution is marriage. It is you who us making the distinction between straight and gay marriage. Your argument could apply equally well to mixed race marriage and would be equally wrong.

The legal and historical definitions of marriage extensively given in the judgments are at one that marriage has, until very recently, been defined as the union of one man and one woman. To pretend otherwise is as anachronistic as asserting that there was racial equality in Mississippi in 1920. It was never the case, however, at common law that interracial marriages were void. That resulted from a specific legislative act of the Commonwealth of Virginia, which was an incident to white supremacy, and which fell within the fourteenth amendment's wording and purpose. As the Chief Justice observed at p. 21:

I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

Richard, I supported same-sex marriage when it was introduced by Parliament in this jurisdiction. If people, whatever their sexual orientation, are foolish enough to want to enter a scheme for the forfeiture of half of their property, then so be it. What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

Cyclefree

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/religion-of-peace-is-not-a-harmless-platitude/

Quite so.

TheWhiteRabbit

Life_ina_market_town said:

FPT

Richard_Tyndall said:

No. The institution is marriage. It is you who us making the distinction between straight and gay marriage. Your argument could apply equally well to mixed race marriage and would be equally wrong.

The legal and historical definitions of marriage extensively given in the judgments are at one that marriage has, until very recently, been defined as the union of one man and one woman. To pretend otherwise is as anachronistic as asserting that there was racial equality in Mississippi in 1920. It was never the case, however, at common law that interracial marriages were void. That resulted from a specific legislative act of the Commonwealth of Virginia, which was an incident to white supremacy, and which fell within the fourteenth amendment's wording and purpose. As the Chief Justice observed at p. 21:

I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

Richard, I supported same-sex marriage when it was introduced by Parliament in this jurisdiction. If people, whatever their sexual orientation, are foolish enough to want to enter a scheme for the forfeiture of half of their property, then so be it. What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

The US has had a history of judicial activism since about 1900, that is an accepted part of the law making process.

Philip_Thompson

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

AnneJGP

Seems to me the key issue is actually very simple.

Whatever the risks of coming out vs the benefits of staying in, and whatever we think of the EU as it is, the key question is: Do we want to be part of the Ever-Closer Union, or not?

If as a nation we can't be whole-heartedly behind the European project of Ever-Closer Union, then we need to say so now.

The offer is the E-CEU, not the EU as is.

david_herdson

Philip_Thompson said:

I think this is an excellent analysis and like your split of open-minded "pragmatists" and "sceptics" rather than hard-set people on the extremes. I'd class myself as a pragmatist - the EU has its flaws but is (just about) worth being a member of, but it could and should be improved.

There is an opportunity here to lance the boil of Europe. The issue has dragged on long enough and I think the bulk in the middle want to find a solution that suits everyone (barring Ken Clarke on one side and a few extremes on the other side).

As for Cameron, this issue is bigger than Cameron. Whether Cameron goes in 2017, 2018 or 2019 is not that important in the grand scheme of things. Whether this issue can reach a satisfactory conclusion does matter.

It is for those betting on his date of departure though!

calum

Things are getting very confusing - here we have the Tories leaking to the Guardian about Cameron's EU strategy:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/26/david-cameron-eu-campaign-risky-impact-uk-exit

Yesterday we had the SNP joining forces with the Daily Mail to deal with extreme Cybernats.

Back in April we had the LibDems leaking to the Daily Telegraph.

UKIP and Labour leaking like sieves to any journalist who comes with in 10 yards of one of their spin doctors.

williamglenn

Life_ina_market_town said:

Richard, I supported same-sex marriage when it was introduced by Parliament in this jurisdiction. If people, whatever their sexual orientation, are foolish enough to want to enter a scheme for the forfeiture of half of their property, then so be it. What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

Then you would be better served by arguing against constitutional courts in principle than searching for flawed legal arguments against individual decisions.

Alistair

Seems like Sturgeon has indeed walked herself and the SNP into a big, massive and incredibly easy to avoid trap

https://twitter.com/Liam_O_Hare/status/614478359901376512

kle4

AnneJGP said:

Seems to me the key issue is actually very simple.

Whatever the risks of coming out vs the benefits of staying in, and whatever we think of the EU as it is, the key question is: Do we want to be part of the Ever-Closer Union, or not?

If as a nation we can't be whole-heartedly behind the European project of Ever-Closer Union, then we need to say so now.

The offer is the E-CEU, not the EU as is.

That is why I've gone over to the Out side. I don't want Ever Closer Union, but that is the direction of travel and the only thing that might happen is delays to that. Us staying in bitter and resentful while the more eager members are frustrated and angry with us, is not good for either side.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

FPT

Richard_Tyndall said:

No. The institution is marriage. It is you who us making the distinction between straight and gay marriage. Your argument could apply equally well to mixed race marriage and would be equally wrong.

The l

The US has had a history of judicial activism since about 1900, that is an accepted part of the law making process.

Indeed - there may well be a case for consistent, reasonable people to lament judicial activism in all situations, as I believe LIAMT is doing, but many (not all) of those in the US complaining about it now in this instance, I suspect have not complained as vociferously about modern or historical examples which favoured things they liked, as from a layman's perspective it seems like it happens all the time. If that is a false impression, then there is more of an argument to be had.

And now, barbecue time (not really a fan of barbecues anymore now I'm at the age - that is, anytime after the early 20s - I cannot really without consequence be pigging out at such events, and if one cannot pig out at a barbecue, what's the point?)

Philip_Thompson

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

FPT

Richard_Tyndall said:

No. The institution is marriage. It is you who us making the distinction between straight and gay marriage. Your argument could apply equally well to mixed race marriage and would be equally wrong.

The legal and historical definitions of marriage extensively given in the judgments are at one that marriage has, until very recently, been defined as the union of one man and one woman. To pretend otherwise is as anachronistic as asserting that there was racial equality in Mississippi in 1920. It was never the case, however, at common law that interracial marriages were void. That resulted from a specific legislative act of the Commonwealth of Virginia, which was an incident to white supremacy, and which fell within the fourteenth amendment's wording and purpose. As the Chief Justice observed at p. 21:

I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

Richard, I supported same-sex marriage when it was introduced by Parliament in this jurisdiction. If people, whatever their sexual orientation, are foolish enough to want to enter a scheme for the forfeiture of half of their property, then so be it. What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

The US has had a history of judicial activism since about 1900, that is an accepted part of the law making process.

Its had a history of it since its inception. Actually by design, the Federalist Papers reveal this was an intentional construct. The first law struck down as unconstitutional was as early as 1803.

Sean_F

williamglenn said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

Richard, I supported same-sex marriage when it was introduced by Parliament in this jurisdiction. If people, whatever their sexual orientation, are foolish enough to want to enter a scheme for the forfeiture of half of their property, then so be it. What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

Then you would be better served by arguing against constitutional courts in principle than searching for flawed legal arguments against individual decisions.

LIAMT has consistently argued against judges being able to override the sovereignty of democratic States. I think his reasoning is sound here.

But as others have pointed out, SCOTUS, like the ECJ or ECHR, is a political court.

Theuniondivvie

Alistair said:

Seems like Sturgeon has indeed walked herself and the SNP into a big, massive and incredibly easy to avoid trap

https://twitter.com/Liam_O_Hare/status/614478359901376512

Dreadful, unacceptable word.

'Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.'

rcs1000

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

Richard, I supported same-sex marriage when it was introduced by Parliament in this jurisdiction. If people, whatever their sexual orientation, are foolish enough to want to enter a scheme for the forfeiture of half of their property, then so be it. What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

Then you would be better served by arguing against constitutional courts in principle than searching for flawed legal arguments against individual decisions.

LIAMT has consistently argued against judges being able to override the sovereignty of democratic States. I think his reasoning is sound here.

But as others have pointed out, SCOTUS, like the ECJ or ECHR, is a political court.

Although presumably there are limits too: could 51% strip the right to vote from the 49%?

david_herdson

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

Richard, I supported same-sex marriage when it was introduced by Parliament in this jurisdiction. If people, whatever their sexual orientation, are foolish enough to want to enter a scheme for the forfeiture of half of their property, then so be it. What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

Then you would be better served by arguing against constitutional courts in principle than searching for flawed legal arguments against individual decisions.

LIAMT has consistently argued against judges being able to override the sovereignty of democratic States. I think his reasoning is sound here.

But as others have pointed out, SCOTUS, like the ECJ or ECHR, is a political court.

Although presumably there are limits too: could 51% strip the right to vote from the 49%?

Any country willing to seriously contemplate such a move is not a democracy before the legislation is even introduced. Democracy is an attitude as much as an action.

Sean_F

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

Richard, I supported same-sex marriage when it was introduced by Parliament in this jurisdiction. If people, whatever their sexual orientation, are foolish enough to want to enter a scheme for the forfeiture of half of their property, then so be it. What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

Then you would be better served by arguing against constitutional courts in principle than searching for flawed legal arguments against individual decisions.

LIAMT has consistently argued against judges being able to override the sovereignty of democratic States. I think his reasoning is sound here.

But as others have pointed out, SCOTUS, like the ECJ or ECHR, is a political court.

Although presumably there are limits too: could 51% strip the right to vote from the 49%?

I suppose I'd regard that as cheating (ie a State would retain the form of a democracy, while ceasing to be one in practice).

williamglenn

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

Richard, I supported same-sex marriage when it was introduced by Parliament in this jurisdiction. If people, whatever their sexual orientation, are foolish enough to want to enter a scheme for the forfeiture of half of their property, then so be it. What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

Then you would be better served by arguing against constitutional courts in principle than searching for flawed legal arguments against individual decisions.

LIAMT has consistently argued against judges being able to override the sovereignty of democratic States. I think his reasoning is sound here.

But as others have pointed out, SCOTUS, like the ECJ or ECHR, is a political court.

Although presumably there are limits too: could 51% strip the right to vote from the 49%?

I suppose I'd regard that as cheating (ie a State would retain the form of a democracy, while ceasing to be one in practice).

Were the democracies democratic before women had the right to vote?

Financier

Cameron's problem is not the UK politicians and nor the European country leaders - his problem is the self-serving EU bureaucracy who want even more power and are scared of losing their over-generous salaries and benefits.

Financier

O/T

Am operating (from my office window) a full size 'walking' and talking Dalek which is going along the promenade. Scares more grannies - than children who want their photos taken with it.

All part of encouraging more study of science in the area - also have lots of other SF beings which operate when an IR beam is cut by a pedestrian.

Sandpit

Good afternoon all. Glad to hear that @BigJohnOwls made it home safely after his ordeal.

Well done to all the tour operators, airlines and several govt departments (some of which will be very behind-the-scenes) in UK and Tunisia for what appears to have been a swift and orderly evacuation.

Unfortunately there are at least 38 families who were not so lucky. RIP.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

The very fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed suggests that opponents of gay marriage in the US did concede that the SCOTUS had to interpret the existing constitution in the way they have.

david_herdson

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

Richard, I supported same-sex marriage when it was introduced by Parliament in this jurisdiction. If people, whatever their sexual orientation, are foolish enough to want to enter a scheme for the forfeiture of half of their property, then so be it. What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

Then you would be better served by arguing against constitutional courts in principle than searching for flawed legal arguments against individual decisions.

LIAMT has consistently argued against judges being able to override the sovereignty of democratic States. I think his reasoning is sound here.

But as others have pointed out, SCOTUS, like the ECJ or ECHR, is a political court.

Although presumably there are limits too: could 51% strip the right to vote from the 49%?

I suppose I'd regard that as cheating (ie a State would retain the form of a democracy, while ceasing to be one in practice).

Were the democracies democratic before women had the right to vote?

Yes, but imperfectly so. As soon as you have a disenfranchised group (including groups that self-disenfranchise), that group ends up with fewer rights and fewer benefits.

Sean_F

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

Richard, I supported same-sex marriage when it was introduced by Parliament in this jurisdiction. If people, whatever their sexual orientation, are foolish enough to want to enter a scheme for the forfeiture of half of their property, then so be it. What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

Then you would be better served by arguing against constitutional courts in principle than searching for flawed legal arguments against individual decisions.

LIAMT has consistently argued against judges being able to override the sovereignty of democratic States. I think his reasoning is sound here.

But as others have pointed out, SCOTUS, like the ECJ or ECHR, is a political court.

Although presumably there are limits too: could 51% strip the right to vote from the 49%?

I suppose I'd regard that as cheating (ie a State would retain the form of a democracy, while ceasing to be one in practice).

Were the democracies democratic before women had the right to vote?

I'd describe the UK as part-aristocracy, part-democracy, prior to 1918. 40% of adult males did not have the vote, as well as all women.

Sandpit

Very good comments from @SouthamObserver on the last thread, also from @MarqueeMark and @Cyclefree about the 'community leaders'. As a country we need to make it clear to them that they are part of the problem unless they accept that we live in a democracy which values security and freedom. Preachers - and their accessories - who encourage attacking that democracy need to be charged with treason and jailed for life, every single one of them until the message is clear.

Sandpit

Greece - the options in the referendum need to be clear.

Either:

[ ] Should taxes be paid and should the retirement age rise?

OR

[ ] Should we quit the Euro and revert to the Drachma?

What will most likely happen is that there will be a 'Have cake, eat cake and lose weight' option which the people will vote for, giving the govt the opportunity to tell the Troika to go away. The govt then gets told where to go and resigns, causing another couple of uncertain months as the election takes place, where the Greek people again vote for the 'Have cake, eat cake and lose weight' party and the whole ting starts again.

That's if the banks don't shut down next week.

philiph

Sandpit said:

Very good comments from @SouthamObserver on the last thread, also from @MarqueeMark and @Cyclefree about the 'community leaders'. As a country we need to make it clear to them that they are part of the problem unless they accept that we live in a democracy which values security and freedom. Preachers - and their accessories - who encourage attacking that democracy need to be charged with treason and jailed for life, every single one of them until the message is clear.

That may be called persecution and exacerbate the situation. Freedom of speech is what we want to protect by banning freedom of speech?

However incitement can be punished.

Philip_Thompson

Sandpit said:

Greece - the options in the referendum need to be clear.

Either:

[ ] Should taxes be paid and should the retirement age rise?

OR

[ ] Should we quit the Euro and revert to the Drachma?

What will most likely happen is that there will be a 'Have cake, eat cake and lose weight' option which the people will vote for, giving the govt the opportunity to tell the Troika to go away. The govt then gets told where to go and resigns, causing another couple of uncertain months as the election takes place, where the Greek people again vote for the 'Have cake, eat cake and lose weight' party and the whole ting starts again.

That's if the banks don't shut down next week.

I think the ECB has reached the point where its not willing to start the whole thing again and the Greeks are playing with fire if they assume otherwise. If a deal to the satisfaction of the ECB and IMF is not reached expect Grexit. There is no alternative.

Innocent_Abroad

Philip_Thompson said:

Sandpit said:

Greece - the options in the referendum need to be clear.

Either:

[ ] Should taxes be paid and should the retirement age rise?

OR

[ ] Should we quit the Euro and revert to the Drachma?

What will most likely happen is that there will be a 'Have cake, eat cake and lose weight' option which the people will vote for, giving the govt the opportunity to tell the Troika to go away. The govt then gets told where to go and resigns, causing another couple of uncertain months as the election takes place, where the Greek people again vote for the 'Have cake, eat cake and lose weight' party and the whole ting starts again.

That's if the banks don't shut down next week.

I think the ECB has reached the point where its not willing to start the whole thing again and the Greeks are playing with fire if they assume otherwise. If a deal to the satisfaction of the ECB and IMF is not reached expect Grexit. There is no alternative.

Both sides are playing with fire.

peter_from_putney

Put another way, the chances of him standing down in 2017 increased markedly this week

I agree with David's above assertion. That said, there's a tremendous divergence in the betting markets where SkyBet offer odds of only 9/4 against DC ceasing to be Prime minister during 2017. Whereas those nice people at Wm. Hill offer odds of 16/1 against him ceasing to be Tory Leader that year. Actually Hills aren't that nice as they would only allow me a maximum wager of SIXTY TWO pence on this bet!

GeoffM

philiph said:

Sandpit said:

Very good comments from @SouthamObserver on the last thread, also from @MarqueeMark and @Cyclefree about the 'community leaders'. As a country we need to make it clear to them that they are part of the problem unless they accept that we live in a democracy which values security and freedom. Preachers - and their accessories - who encourage attacking that democracy need to be charged with treason and jailed for life, every single one of them until the message is clear.

That may be called persecution and exacerbate the situation. Freedom of speech is what we want to protect by banning freedom of speech?

However incitement can be punished.

Freedom of speech etc should allow anyone to appoint themselves a "community leader" and equally allow us to ignore or ridicule them as the mood takes us.

We should have the balls to ignore them. And that includes the biased lefty BBC using them as "spokesmen" to create news rather than report it.

Sean_F

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

The very fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed suggests that opponents of gay marriage in the US did concede that the SCOTUS had to interpret the existing constitution in the way they have.

I think the purpose was to prevent Massachussets, and other liberal States, from introducing SSM. I don't SCOTUS would have made this ruling 11 years ago.

Sandpit

philiph said:

Sandpit said:

Very good comments from @SouthamObserver on the last thread, also from @MarqueeMark and @Cyclefree about the 'community leaders'. As a country we need to make it clear to them that they are part of the problem unless they accept that we live in a democracy which values security and freedom. Preachers - and their accessories - who encourage attacking that democracy need to be charged with treason and jailed for life, every single one of them until the message is clear.

That may be called persecution and exacerbate the situation. Freedom of speech is what we want to protect by banning freedom of speech?

However incitement can be punished.

Freedom of speech is of course fundamental - but it needs to be made clear to these preachers that it will be for a jury to decide the line between free speech, incitement and treason - not themselves, their supporters or their 'community leaders.

justin124

kle4 said:

I always figured either he'd lose and be forced out, or he'd win, declare job done as PM but that it was time for a new leader to take the party forward from what had been a difficult time, and so he'd stand down in a year or something afterwards.

The effect of that,of course, would be to make Cameron a blatant liar in terms of his commitment prior to the election to serve a full second term.

Innocent_Abroad

Sandpit said:

philiph said:

Sandpit said:

Very good comments from @SouthamObserver on the last thread, also from @MarqueeMark and @Cyclefree about the 'community leaders'. As a country we need to make it clear to them that they are part of the problem unless they accept that we live in a democracy which values security and freedom. Preachers - and their accessories - who encourage attacking that democracy need to be charged with treason and jailed for life, every single one of them until the message is clear.

That may be called persecution and exacerbate the situation. Freedom of speech is what we want to protect by banning freedom of speech?

However incitement can be punished.

Freedom of speech is of course fundamental - but it needs to be made clear to these preachers that it will be for a jury to decide the line between free speech, incitement and treason - not themselves, their supporters or their 'community leaders.

Indeed. The problem for the State is that there is less than no reason to suppose that an inner London jury and one empanelled in the depths of rural England will say anything like the same thing.

GeoffM

justin124 said:

kle4 said:

I always figured either he'd lose and be forced out, or he'd win, declare job done as PM but that it was time for a new leader to take the party forward from what had been a difficult time, and so he'd stand down in a year or something afterwards.

The effect of that,of course, would be to make Cameron a blatant liar in terms of his commitment prior to the election to serve a full second term.

A guess/opinion that kle4 has about David Cameron being forced out makes Cameron a "blatant liar" for intending not to be forced out?

You live in a warped partisan world. Do we need visas and jabs to visit you?

Philip_Thompson

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

The very fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed suggests that opponents of gay marriage in the US did concede that the SCOTUS had to interpret the existing constitution in the way they have.

I think the purpose was to prevent Massachussets, and other liberal States, from introducing SSM. I don't SCOTUS would have made this ruling 11 years ago.

I'm not sure SCOTUS was dead set against this 11 years ago either. The precedence for the decision Kennedy wrote with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan made yesterday relied in large part upon precedence in the Lawrence v Texas set 12 years ago by Kennedy along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter (the latter two were replaced with Sotomayor and Kagan).

It was clear the direction of travel from Lawrence was ultimately towards yesterday's decision. It was put off for a few years but it was inevitable.

Sean_F

Sandpit said:

philiph said:

Sandpit said:

Very good comments from @SouthamObserver on the last thread, also from @MarqueeMark and @Cyclefree about the 'community leaders'. As a country we need to make it clear to them that they are part of the problem unless they accept that we live in a democracy which values security and freedom. Preachers - and their accessories - who encourage attacking that democracy need to be charged with treason and jailed for life, every single one of them until the message is clear.

That may be called persecution and exacerbate the situation. Freedom of speech is what we want to protect by banning freedom of speech?

However incitement can be punished.

Freedom of speech is of course fundamental - but it needs to be made clear to these preachers that it will be for a jury to decide the line between free speech, incitement and treason - not themselves, their supporters or their 'community leaders.

The point at which people should be prosecuted is when they incite others to commit crimes, but not otherwise. Nor should crimes like rape or FGM be overlooked in the name of good community relations.

Expressing opposition to democracy, or advocacy of sharia should not be treated as criminal, in my view.

GeoffM

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

The very fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed suggests that opponents of gay marriage in the US did concede that the SCOTUS had to interpret the existing constitution in the way they have.

I think the purpose was to prevent Massachussets, and other liberal States, from introducing SSM. I don't SCOTUS would have made this ruling 11 years ago.

I'm not sure SCOTUS was dead set against this 11 years ago either. The precedence for the decision Kennedy wrote with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan made yesterday relied in large part upon precedence in the Lawrence v Texas set 12 years ago by Kennedy along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter (the latter two were replaced with Sotomayor and Kagan).

It was clear the direction of travel from Lawrence was ultimately towards yesterday's decision. It was put off for a few years but it was inevitable.

As will be legalised polygamy which is the next point on the same direction of travel.

justin124

GeoffM said:

justin124 said:

kle4 said:

I always figured either he'd lose and be forced out, or he'd win, declare job done as PM but that it was time for a new leader to take the party forward from what had been a difficult time, and so he'd stand down in a year or something afterwards.

The effect of that,of course, would be to make Cameron a blatant liar in terms of his commitment prior to the election to serve a full second term.

A guess/opinion that kle4 has about David Cameron being forced out makes Cameron a "blatant liar" for intending not to be forced out?

You live in a warped partisan world. Do we need visas and jabs to visit you?

Be assured that Arbeit Macht Frei types such as yourself - and similar exceta - are never welcome.

calum

kle4 said:

I always figured either he'd lose and be forced out, or he'd win, declare job done as PM but that it was time for a new leader to take the party forward from what had been a difficult time, and so he'd stand down in a year or something afterwards.

I think Cameron probably had contingency plans ready to implemented should he have lost GE2015. I'm sure the names David Cameron & Associates etc have all been registered as he'll want to get his strategic consultancy going ASAP after dumping the PM position - let the £millions start rolling in.

Plato

You really should pack that in. It makes you look like a complete twit.

justin124 said:

GeoffM said:

justin124 said:

kle4 said:

I always figured either he'd lose and be forced out, or he'd win, declare job done as PM but that it was time for a new leader to take the party forward from what had been a difficult time, and so he'd stand down in a year or something afterwards.

The effect of that,of course, would be to make Cameron a blatant liar in terms of his commitment prior to the election to serve a full second term.

A guess/opinion that kle4 has about David Cameron being forced out makes Cameron a "blatant liar" for intending not to be forced out?

You live in a warped partisan world. Do we need visas and jabs to visit you?

Be assured that Arbeit Macht Frei types such as yourself - and similar exceta - are never welcome.

GeoffM

justin124 said:

GeoffM said:

justin124 said:

kle4 said:

I always figured either he'd lose and be forced out, or he'd win, declare job done as PM but that it was time for a new leader to take the party forward from what had been a difficult time, and so he'd stand down in a year or something afterwards.

The effect of that,of course, would be to make Cameron a blatant liar in terms of his commitment prior to the election to serve a full second term.

A guess/opinion that kle4 has about David Cameron being forced out makes Cameron a "blatant liar" for intending not to be forced out?

You live in a warped partisan world. Do we need visas and jabs to visit you?

Be assured that Arbeit Macht Frei types such as yourself - and similar exceta - are never welcome.

I'll get my community organiser to write to your carer and lodge a complaint.

Sandpit

Sean_F said:

Sandpit said:

philiph said:

Sandpit said:

Very good comments from @SouthamObserver on the last thread, also from @MarqueeMark and @Cyclefree about the 'community leaders'. As a country we need to make it clear to them that they are part of the problem unless they accept that we live in a democracy which values security and freedom. Preachers - and their accessories - who encourage attacking that democracy need to be charged with treason and jailed for life, every single one of them until the message is clear.

That may be called persecution and exacerbate the situation. Freedom of speech is what we want to protect by banning freedom of speech?

However incitement can be punished.

Freedom of speech is of course fundamental - but it needs to be made clear to these preachers that it will be for a jury to decide the line between free speech, incitement and treason - not themselves, their supporters or their 'community leaders.

The point at which people should be prosecuted is when they incite others to commit crimes, but not otherwise. Nor should crimes like rape or FGM be overlooked in the name of good community relations.

Expressing opposition to democracy, or advocacy of sharia should not be treated as criminal, in my view.

I agree with you, but until now it appears that the community relations aspect has overruled the public interest in shutting up these nutcases. This attitude is what needs to change, and quickly.
We also need to make it quite clear that we will deport people first and let them appeal from abroad to be let back in if they so desire - this is what happens in pretty much the whole world outside the EU - with its seemingly bizarre rules on human rights. We have become tolerant of the intolerable.

AnneJGP

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

The very fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed suggests that opponents of gay marriage in the US did concede that the SCOTUS had to interpret the existing constitution in the way they have.

I think the purpose was to prevent Massachussets, and other liberal States, from introducing SSM. I don't SCOTUS would have made this ruling 11 years ago.

I'm not sure SCOTUS was dead set against this 11 years ago either. The precedence for the decision Kennedy wrote with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan made yesterday relied in large part upon precedence in the Lawrence v Texas set 12 years ago by Kennedy along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter (the latter two were replaced with Sotomayor and Kagan).

It was clear the direction of travel from Lawrence was ultimately towards yesterday's decision. It was put off for a few years but it was inevitable.

As will be legalised polygamy which is the next point on the same direction of travel.

As long as we can have polyandry too, why not?

david_herdson

Sandpit said:

Greece - the options in the referendum need to be clear.

Either:

[ ] Should taxes be paid and should the retirement age rise?

OR

[ ] Should we quit the Euro and revert to the Drachma?

What will most likely happen is that there will be a 'Have cake, eat cake and lose weight' option which the people will vote for, giving the govt the opportunity to tell the Troika to go away. The govt then gets told where to go and resigns, causing another couple of uncertain months as the election takes place, where the Greek people again vote for the 'Have cake, eat cake and lose weight' party and the whole ting starts again.

That's if the banks don't shut down next week.

Reverting to the Drachma won't fill the government's coffers, nor improve its ability to borrow on the money markets so why should that affect the need to collect sufficient taxes or pay benefits and pensions affordably?

The only advantages reverting to a Drachmae would have would be devaluation and the ability to print. Both options, however, make imports more expensive and increase the cost of living. It's just that reality is forced on people in real terms rather than nominal ones.

williamglenn

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

The very fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed suggests that opponents of gay marriage in the US did concede that the SCOTUS had to interpret the existing constitution in the way they have.

I think the purpose was to prevent Massachussets, and other liberal States, from introducing SSM. I don't SCOTUS would have made this ruling 11 years ago.

I'm not sure SCOTUS was dead set against this 11 years ago either. The precedence for the decision Kennedy wrote with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan made yesterday relied in large part upon precedence in the Lawrence v Texas set 12 years ago by Kennedy along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter (the latter two were replaced with Sotomayor and Kagan).

It was clear the direction of travel from Lawrence was ultimately towards yesterday's decision. It was put off for a few years but it was inevitable.

As will be legalised polygamy which is the next point on the same direction of travel.

No, the direction of travel is away from such primitive mores.

GeoffM

Plato said:

You really should pack that in. It makes you look like a complete twit.

justin124 said:

GeoffM said:

justin124 said:

kle4 said:

I always figured either he'd lose and be forced out, or he'd win, declare job done as PM but that it was time for a new leader to take the party forward from what had been a difficult time, and so he'd stand down in a year or something afterwards.

The effect of that,of course, would be to make Cameron a blatant liar in terms of his commitment prior to the election to serve a full second term.

A guess/opinion that kle4 has about David Cameron being forced out makes Cameron a "blatant liar" for intending not to be forced out?

You live in a warped partisan world. Do we need visas and jabs to visit you?

Be assured that Arbeit Macht Frei types such as yourself - and similar exceta - are never welcome.

Especially when he's calling me, as a Jew, an "Arbeit Macht Frei type".

In a historical context that's pushing it a little bit.

Indigo

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

Richard_Tyndall said:

No. The institution is marriage. It is you who us making the distinction between straight and gay marriage. Your argument could apply equally well to mixed race marriage and would be equally wrong.

As the dissenting judgement implies, expect to see a challenge very soon to legalise bigamy on the basis that that is "just marriage" as well.

Sean_F

justin124 said:

GeoffM said:

justin124 said:

kle4 said:

I always figured either he'd lose and be forced out, or he'd win, declare job done as PM but that it was time for a new leader to take the party forward from what had been a difficult time, and so he'd stand down in a year or something afterwards.

The effect of that,of course, would be to make Cameron a blatant liar in terms of his commitment prior to the election to serve a full second term.

A guess/opinion that kle4 has about David Cameron being forced out makes Cameron a "blatant liar" for intending not to be forced out?

You live in a warped partisan world. Do we need visas and jabs to visit you?

Be assured that Arbeit Macht Frei types such as yourself - and similar exceta - are never welcome.

Are you rally comparing this government to the National Socialists?

calum

Alistair said:

Seems like Sturgeon has indeed walked herself and the SNP into a big, massive and incredibly easy to avoid trap

https://twitter.com/Liam_O_Hare/status/614478359901376512

I fear that the Daily Mail and SLAB have fallen into Sturgeon's bear trap. I'm sure the SNP being the most social media savvy party will have gathered large dossiers of Cyberunionist abuse of SNP MPs, which will be appropriately redacted to avoid falling foul of the DP Act and ready to be drip-fed to the MSM.

Plato

This has legs

A very flawed accuser: Investigation into the academic who hounded a Nobel Prize winning scientist out of his job reveals troubling questions about her testimony ...

Perhaps, therefore, we should ask two other related questions: who exactly is Connie St Louis? And why, exactly, should we trust her word over that of a Nobel laureate?

A good place to start is the website of London’s City University, where St Louis has, for more than a decade, been employed to run a postgraduate course in science journalism. Here, on a page outlining her CV, she is described as follows:

‘Connie St Louis . . . is an award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist. ‘She presents and produces a range of programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service . . . She writes for numerous outlets, including The Independent, Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, BBC On Air magazine and BBC Online.’

All very prestigious. Comforting, no doubt, for potential students considering whether to devote a year of their lives (and money) to completing an MA course under her stewardship. Except, that is for one small detail: almost all of these supposed ‘facts’ appear to be untrue.

For one thing, Connie St Louis does not ‘present and produce’ a range of programmes for Radio 4. Her most recent work for the station, a documentary about pharmaceuticals called The Magic Bullet, was broadcast in October 2007.

For another, it’s demonstrably false to say she ‘writes’ for The Independent, Daily Mail and The Sunday Times.

Digital archives for all three newspapers, which stretch back at least 20 years, contain no by-lined articles that she has written for any of these titles, either in their print or online editions. The Mail’s accounts department has no record of ever paying her for a contribution.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html#ixzz3eGa7Lu1e
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

GeoffM

williamglenn said:

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

The very fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed suggests that opponents of gay marriage in the US did concede that the SCOTUS had to interpret the existing constitution in the way they have.

I think the purpose was to prevent Massachussets, and other liberal States, from introducing SSM. I don't SCOTUS would have made this ruling 11 years ago.

I'm not sure SCOTUS was dead set against this 11 years ago either. The precedence for the decision Kennedy wrote with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan made yesterday relied in large part upon precedence in the Lawrence v Texas set 12 years ago by Kennedy along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter (the latter two were replaced with Sotomayor and Kagan).

It was clear the direction of travel from Lawrence was ultimately towards yesterday's decision. It was put off for a few years but it was inevitable.

As will be legalised polygamy which is the next point on the same direction of travel.

No, the direction of travel is away from such primitive mores.

Why do you think so? In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he says, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

The Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right to, as the decision said, “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family”.

SCOTUS has a clear direction of travel in terms of liberalisation here. The illegality of polygamy and (as @AnneJGP quite rightly says) polyandry would surely fall under legal challenge based on Friday.

david_herdson

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

The very fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed suggests that opponents of gay marriage in the US did concede that the SCOTUS had to interpret the existing constitution in the way they have.

I think the purpose was to prevent Massachussets, and other liberal States, from introducing SSM. I don't SCOTUS would have made this ruling 11 years ago.

I'm not sure SCOTUS was dead set against this 11 years ago either. The precedence for the decision Kennedy wrote with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan made yesterday relied in large part upon precedence in the Lawrence v Texas set 12 years ago by Kennedy along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter (the latter two were replaced with Sotomayor and Kagan).

It was clear the direction of travel from Lawrence was ultimately towards yesterday's decision. It was put off for a few years but it was inevitable.

As will be legalised polygamy which is the next point on the same direction of travel.

Precedent would suggest that polygamy would already be constitutional albeit not necessarily a constitutional right, Congress having previously felt it necessary to ban it.

williamglenn

GeoffM said:

williamglenn said:

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

The very fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed suggests that opponents of gay marriage in the US did concede that the SCOTUS had to interpret the existing constitution in the way they have.

I think the purpose was to prevent Massachussets, and other liberal States, from introducing SSM. I don't SCOTUS would have made this ruling 11 years ago.

I'm not sure SCOTUS was dead set against this 11 years ago either. The precedence for the decision Kennedy wrote with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan made yesterday relied in large part upon precedence in the Lawrence v Texas set 12 years ago by Kennedy along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter (the latter two were replaced with Sotomayor and Kagan).

It was clear the direction of travel from Lawrence was ultimately towards yesterday's decision. It was put off for a few years but it was inevitable.

As will be legalised polygamy which is the next point on the same direction of travel.

No, the direction of travel is away from such primitive mores.

Why do you think so? In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he says, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

The Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right to, as the decision said, “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.”.

SCOTUS has a clear direction of travel in terms of liberalisation here. The illegality of polygamy and (ad @AnneJGP quite rightly says) polyandry would surely fall under legal challenge based on Friday.

Do you not see any conflict between the love, fidelity and devotion part with bigamy?

Multiple marriage is clearly something different. Indeed this judgement, by treating straight and gay marriage as the same thing, closes down a possible loophole that someone could enter into a straight and a gay marriage at the same time and then argue that as they are qualitatively different, it's not polygamy.

GeoffM

Plato said:

This has legs

Unfortunately if it has legs I fear they are short stubby inside-page ones.
The man has been destroyed, the Left have charred the ground and salted the earth and the media cycle has moved on.
Her lies and professional victim status party trick will go on to claim other innocent scalps but you can stick a fork in the good Doctor ... he's done.

Indigo

AnneJGP said:

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

The very fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed suggests that opponents of gay marriage in the US did concede that the SCOTUS had to interpret the existing constitution in the way they have.

I think the purpose was to prevent Massachussets, and other liberal States, from introducing SSM. I don't SCOTUS would have made this ruling 11 years ago.

I'm not sure SCOTUS was dead set against this 11 years ago either. The precedence for the decision Kennedy wrote with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan made yesterday relied in large part upon precedence in the Lawrence v Texas set 12 years ago by Kennedy along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter (the latter two were replaced with Sotomayor and Kagan).

It was clear the direction of travel from Lawrence was ultimately towards yesterday's decision. It was put off for a few years but it was inevitable.

As will be legalised polygamy which is the next point on the same direction of travel.

As long as we can have polyandry too, why not?

The implications ripping out would a be hair-raising, where does it leave inheritance law, contract law, (joint liability etc), tax law (double "married couple" allowances ?), divorce law(!) to name but a few.

If you have two wives, each bringing assets into the marriage, do each of one mothers children by the father stand to inherit a share (equal or otherwise) of the assets of the other mother should she die.

If one mother divorces the shared father, and is earning a considerable income, should she be contributing to the upkeep of the other mothers children, since they would have an expectation of a standard of living that was achieved with the income now absent ?

GeoffM

williamglenn said:

GeoffM said:

williamglenn said:

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

The very fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed suggests that opponents of gay marriage in the US did concede that the SCOTUS had to interpret the existing constitution in the way they have.

I think the purpose was to prevent Massachussets, and other liberal States, from introducing SSM. I don't SCOTUS would have made this ruling 11 years ago.

I'm not sure SCOTUS was dead set against this 11 years ago either. The precedence for the decision Kennedy wrote with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan made yesterday relied in large part upon precedence in the Lawrence v Texas set 12 years ago by Kennedy along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter (the latter two were replaced with Sotomayor and Kagan).

It was clear the direction of travel from Lawrence was ultimately towards yesterday's decision. It was put off for a few years but it was inevitable.

As will be legalised polygamy which is the next point on the same direction of travel.

No, the direction of travel is away from such primitive mores.

Why do you think so? In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he says, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

The Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right to, as the decision said, “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.”.

SCOTUS has a clear direction of travel in terms of liberalisation here. The illegality of polygamy and (ad @AnneJGP quite rightly says) polyandry would surely fall under legal challenge based on Friday.

Do you not see any conflict between the love, fidelity and devotion part with bigamy?

Multiple marriage is clearly something different. Indeed this judgement, by treating straight and gay marriage as the same thing, closes down a possible loophole that someone could enter into a straight and a gay marriage at the same time and then argue that as they are qualitatively different, it's not polygamy.

Actually I didn't mention bigamy.
I believe you are mixing my comment up with that of the excellent @Indigo.

williamglenn

GeoffM said:

williamglenn said:

Do you not see any conflict between the love, fidelity and devotion part with bigamy?

Multiple marriage is clearly something different. Indeed this judgement, by treating straight and gay marriage as the same thing, closes down a possible loophole that someone could enter into a straight and a gay marriage at the same time and then argue that as they are qualitatively different, it's not polygamy.

Actually I didn't mention bigamy.
I believe you are mixing my comment up with that of the excellent @Indigo.

You mentioned polygamy which is one step up. Replace the word bigamy with polygamy in my first sentence if you prefer.

Plato

I really thought this was damning.

Her work for The Guardian appears to consist of two online articles: one published in 2013; the other, about the Sir Tim Hunt affair, went live (online) this week.

Curiously, that 1,000-word piece, in which St Louis recalled the scandal, was heavily edited after publication. Around 30 changes, some of them significant, were made to it. In an apparent contradiction of usual Guardian policy, the version now running online contains no disclaimer detailing this fact.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141158/A-flawed-accuser-Investigation-academic-hounded-Nobel-Prize-winning-scientist-job-reveals-troubling-questions-testimony.html#ixzz3eGdPhiJy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

GeoffM said:

Plato said:

This has legs

Unfortunately if it has legs I fear they are short stubby inside-page ones.
The man has been destroyed, the Left have charred the ground and salted the earth and the media cycle has moved on.
Her lies and professional victim status party trick will go on to claim other innocent scalps but you can stick a fork in the good Doctor ... he's done.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Greece could yet define how the question is viewed in the UK. Since the financial crash, we've been in interesting times.

Indigo

williamglenn said:

GeoffM said:

williamglenn said:

Do you not see any conflict between the love, fidelity and devotion part with bigamy?

Multiple marriage is clearly something different. Indeed this judgement, by treating straight and gay marriage as the same thing, closes down a possible loophole that someone could enter into a straight and a gay marriage at the same time and then argue that as they are qualitatively different, it's not polygamy.

Actually I didn't mention bigamy.
I believe you are mixing my comment up with that of the excellent @Indigo.

You mentioned polygamy which is one step up. Replace the word bigamy with polygamy in my first sentence if you prefer.

My mistake as well, although I think the argument is valid in both cases. Bigamy doesn't necessarily imply lose of love of the first partner, it could in effect be the formalisation of an open relationship with one or more partners being added which are mutually agreeable.

david_herdson

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Greece could yet define how the question is viewed in the UK. Since the financial crash, we've been in interesting times.

I do wonder whether if we get Grexit or GrEUxit, it will make the EU more amenable or more hostile to doing a deal with Britain.

Do they risk a domino effect of one after another member leaving or do they risk a succession of what they see as special pleading?

And leaving that question hanging, I'm off out this glorious afternoon.

Plato

From Speccy article upthread http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/religion-of-peace-is-not-a-harmless-platitude/

All these leaders are wrong. In private, they and their senior advisers often concede that they are telling a lie. The most sympathetic explanation is that they are telling a ‘noble lie’, provoked by a fear that we — the general public — are a lynch mob in waiting. ‘Noble’ or not, this lie is a mistake. First, because the general public do not rely on politicians for their information and can perfectly well read articles and books about Islam for themselves. Secondly, because the lie helps no one understand the threat we face. Thirdly, because it takes any heat off Muslims to deal with the bad traditions in their own religion. And fourthly, because unless mainstream politicians address these matters then one day perhaps the public will overtake their politicians to a truly alarming extent.

and this....

We have spent 15 years pretending things about Islam, a complex religion with competing interpretations. It is true that most Muslims live their lives peacefully. But a sizeable portion (around 15 per cent and more in most surveys) follow a far more radical version. The remainder are sitting on a religion which is, in many of its current forms, a deeply unstable component. That has always been a problem for reformist Muslims. But the results of ongoing mass immigration to the West at the same time as a worldwide return to Islamic literalism means that this is now a problem for all of us. To stand even a chance of dealing with it, we are going to have to wake up to it and acknowledge it for what it is.’

williamglenn

Indigo said:

williamglenn said:

GeoffM said:

williamglenn said:

Do you not see any conflict between the love, fidelity and devotion part with bigamy?

Multiple marriage is clearly something different. Indeed this judgement, by treating straight and gay marriage as the same thing, closes down a possible loophole that someone could enter into a straight and a gay marriage at the same time and then argue that as they are qualitatively different, it's not polygamy.

Actually I didn't mention bigamy.
I believe you are mixing my comment up with that of the excellent @Indigo.

You mentioned polygamy which is one step up. Replace the word bigamy with polygamy in my first sentence if you prefer.

My mistake as well, although I think the argument is valid in both cases. Bigamy doesn't necessarily imply lose of love of the first partner, it could in effect be the formalisation of an open relationship with one or more partners being added which are mutually agreeable.

It could be this; it could be that. What it clearly isn't is a logical extension of gay marriage.

AnneJGP

Indigo said:

AnneJGP said:

GeoffM said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

The very fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment was proposed suggests that opponents of gay marriage in the US did concede that the SCOTUS had to interpret the existing constitution in the way they have.

I think the purpose was to prevent Massachussets, and other liberal States, from introducing SSM. I don't SCOTUS would have made this ruling 11 years ago.

I'm not sure SCOTUS was dead set against this 11 years ago either. The precedence for the decision Kennedy wrote with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan made yesterday relied in large part upon precedence in the Lawrence v Texas set 12 years ago by Kennedy along with Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter (the latter two were replaced with Sotomayor and Kagan).

It was clear the direction of travel from Lawrence was ultimately towards yesterday's decision. It was put off for a few years but it was inevitable.

As will be legalised polygamy which is the next point on the same direction of travel.

As long as we can have polyandry too, why not?

The implications ripping out would a be hair-raising, where does it leave inheritance law, contract law, (joint liability etc), tax law (double "married couple" allowances ?), divorce law(!) to name but a few.

If you have two wives, each bringing assets into the marriage, do each of one mothers children by the father stand to inherit a share (equal or otherwise) of the assets of the other mother should she die.

If one mother divorces the shared father, and is earning a considerable income, should she be contributing to the upkeep of the other mothers children, since they would have an expectation of a standard of living that was achieved with the income now absent ?

People seem to be in favour of widening life-style choices without taking into account potential problems for the future. The difficulties facing many children today with step, 2-step, 3-step families look quite appalling to some, but they seem to manage.

It will mean plenty of work for lawyers.

(Edited to add: it could solve a few housing problems, but equally add to housing problems when partnerships split up.)

Philip_Thompson

david_herdson said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

Greece could yet define how the question is viewed in the UK. Since the financial crash, we've been in interesting times.

I do wonder whether if we get Grexit or GrEUxit, it will make the EU more amenable or more hostile to doing a deal with Britain.

Do they risk a domino effect of one after another member leaving or do they risk a succession of what they see as special pleading?

And leaving that question hanging, I'm off out this glorious afternoon.

To lose one member can be ascribed to problems with the Greeks. To lose two in quick succession, one due to failure and another choosing to leave could trigger an existential crisis for the rest of Europe as to whether the really want to remain.

Combined with the fact much of Europe agrees with what we're saying, it will strengthen Cameron's hand as the threat of us leaving would be taken much more seriously.

Plato

ICYMI

A Swiss 'megacar' has smashed the world speed record for a production car - while practising for a record attempt.

The car smashed the existing production car record by accelerating from standstill to 0-300kmh, and back down to zero again, in just 17.95 seconds.

The Koenigsegg One:1 Megacar should go even faster in the future, its makers say - but only six will be made, and they have all been sold already.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3128790/Watch-incredible-Koenigsegg-One-megacar-set-new-speed-record-practising-record-attempt.html#ixzz3eGkIvBVI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Thompson, I'd agree, but I think Cameron's a soft pro-EU sort. Not a zealot by any means, but too pro-EU to wring as much as he can from them. His goal is to win the referendum more than anything else. Only if the French or someone else do something bloody stupid would he be pushed to Out [or demanding more].

Philip_Thompson

Indigo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

What I am opposed to is judicial activism, of which Obergefell is a blatant example.

What you see as judicial activism others including a majority of the SCOTUS and a majority of US citizens and a majority of US Federal Circuit judges see as the 14th Amendment being enforced as its supposed to be.

Richard_Tyndall said:

No. The institution is marriage. It is you who us making the distinction between straight and gay marriage. Your argument could apply equally well to mixed race marriage and would be equally wrong.

As the dissenting judgement implies, expect to see a challenge very soon to legalise bigamy on the basis that that is "just marriage" as well.

So what? Let that be argued on its own merits, if there's no merited arguments against then let it be legalised.

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, the name's straight out of Captain Scarlet or suchlike.

That performance is incredible.

Speaking of such things, it's the last Top Gear with the current crew tomorrow night. One suspects a 'bombshell' announcement of House of Cars, probably on Netflix, will emerge shortly thereafter.

Plato

WTF!

The hp to kg curb weight ratio is an astonishing 1:1.

This is the 'dream' equation, previously thought impossible when it comes to fully road legal and usable sportscars.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3128790/Watch-incredible-Koenigsegg-One-megacar-set-new-speed-record-practising-record-attempt.html#ixzz3eGlUJfmO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Plato, the name's straight out of Captain Scarlet or suchlike.

That performance is incredible.

Speaking of such things, it's the last Top Gear with the current crew tomorrow night. One suspects a 'bombshell' announcement of House of Cars, probably on Netflix, will emerge shortly thereafter.

Philip_Thompson

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Thompson, I'd agree, but I think Cameron's a soft pro-EU sort. Not a zealot by any means, but too pro-EU to wring as much as he can from them. His goal is to win the referendum more than anything else. Only if the French or someone else do something bloody stupid would he be pushed to Out [or demanding more].

I think Cameron is a canny negotiator, he'll try and get the best deal possible but his priority will indeed be ensuring the negotiations work. If his hand is strengthened he'll get a better deal.

John_M

Afternoon all. As a BOOer, I'm already resigned to my fate; the electorate as a whole will 'cling to nurse' and we'll stay in the EU. That's democracy, warts and all.

However, I will be very unhappy if Cameron hasn't secured our permanent, irreversible exemption from 'ever closer union'. Here's hoping.

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, that's fascinating, although I'm pretty sure the Bugatti Veyron went considerably faster. It's about 1.6km to 1 mile, and the Veyron went something like 263mph.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. M, he'll get a promise, which will later transpire to be a lie.

Morris_Dancer

Incidentally, saw on Twitter that ITV4's got Formula E coverage now (unsure if that's the race start or the programme beginning).

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Plato, that's fascinating, although I'm pretty sure the Bugatti Veyron went considerably faster. It's about 1.6km to 1 mile, and the Veyron went something like 263mph.

Mr Dancer, the power-to-weight ratio of the Koenigsegg One:1 is double that of the Veyron.

It's about 1350kg and 1350bhp, the original Bugatti was 2000kg and 1000bhp, although the later SuperSport model had about 1200bhp. The only thing close to it the One:1 is an F1 car (670kg, c.900bhp)

PS for any petrolheads around, not sure what time it's on TV but the Goodwood Festival of Speed is well worth watching if you get the chance.

AnneJGP

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. M, he'll get a promise, which will later transpire to be a lie.

You may well be right, which is why I consider the Out campaign should focus on the simple message of Ever-Closer or not?

Morris_Dancer

Miss JGP, that's the way I'd do it, but Out's got a job on.

Plato

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/614799329820340224

Philip_Thompson

AnneJGP said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. M, he'll get a promise, which will later transpire to be a lie.

You may well be right, which is why I consider the Out campaign should focus on the simple message of Ever-Closer or not?

I don't think that will work for the majority of the public in the same way as Hague's "seven days to save the pound" didn't win a majority because back then Blair was pledging a euro referendum before euro entry (which neutered Hague's claims) while the referendum lock and pledge to not have any further closer union neuters that.

Some may claim that the referendum lock won't work, but they're not undecided voters. The debate will be between membership as arranged or exit - not between some hypothetical closer union that is not proposed or exit.

LadyBucket

I am sure what David Cameron would like right now, is a day off, or preferably a week to at least see his children. He looks shattered.
He worked 7 days a week for six weeks on the GE campaign and then went straight back to Downing Street. That same week he started his visits to other EU leaders.
I think his party should back off, the negotiations are not going to anywhere at the moment. I can't believe the Greek pm didn't call a referendum weeks ago.

MarkHopkins

LadyBucket said:

I am sure what David Cameron would like right now, is a day off, or preferably a week to at least see his children. He looks shattered.
He worked 7 days a week for six weeks on the GE campaign and then went straight back to Downing Street. That same week he started his visits to other EU leaders.
I think his party should back off, the negotiations are not going to anywhere at the moment. I can't believe the Greek pm didn't call a referendum weeks ago.

"I can't believe the Greek pm didn't call a referendum weeks ago. "


It's a very useful delaying and hand-washing tactic for him, but he needed to use it at the right time.

Don't think it will make much difference to the outcome though.

calum

I missed this report from last week on Yemen by Sherine Tadros, although I'd read about the situation, this footage really brought it home as to how dangerous things are getting across the whole region. I hadn't appreciated that the Saudi's and their allies were bombing the Iranian backed Houthi region:

http://news.sky.com/story/1502701/yemen-hangs-in-the-balance-as-war-rages

The bravery of the journalists like Sherine who put themselves in harms way to get us this first hand news should be saluted by us all.

Danny565

On the topic, shouldn't the referendum have 3 options? There should be stay in on current terms, stay in on Cameron's proposed renegotiated terms, or get out altogether.

I for one would switch from leaning In to leaning Out, if the only way of staying in meant employment' protections were negotiated away, for example.

GIN1138

What if the PM decided this is a useless, hopeless, failed organisation whose "backwards" thinking is bringing economic stagnation on most of it's citizens and complete and total economic collapse on a few of them and we'd be better off out?

#pigsmightfly

williamglenn

Danny565 said:

I for one would switch from leaning In to leaning Out, if the only way of staying in meant employment' protections were negotiated away, for example.

That would be irrational. If we left you'd need to rely on the UK government to implement those employment protections, the same as if Cameron negotiated them away.

GIN1138

On Cameron, what's the point of the Tory Party going through the trauma of forcing him out, when he'll be retiring shortly after the referendum/s anyway?

I don't think he'll be forced out but I suppose his departure may be brought forwards by a few months...

Danny565

williamglenn said:

Danny565 said:

On the topic, shouldn't the referendum have 3 options? There should be stay in on current terms, stay in on Cameron's proposed renegotiated terms, or get out altogether.

I for one would switch from leaning In to leaning Out, if the only way of staying in meant employment' protections were negotiated away, for example.

That would be irrational. If we left you'd need to rely on the UK government to implement those employment protections, the same as if Cameron negotiated them away.

Yes, but the point is that for me, the employment protections are one of the benefits of the EU which makes it worth stomaching the drawbacks (uncontrolled immigration, endless money wasted on super-bureaucracy, stitch-ups for undeserving greedy big businesses which crowd out more ethical businesses).

If one of the few benefits goes then I won't see much point putting up with the disadvantages anymore.

AlastairMeeks

@StefanLeifert: "Where there is a will, there is a way." But: There is no more will. #Eurogroup

DavidL

A Grexit would be a real boost for Out, almost regardless of how chaotic it was. It would remove all the inevitability of the EU and make the argument about ever closer union seem truly irrelevant. Their future relationship with the EU would also give something of a template.

At the moment In seems likely to win relatively easily but this is something that could change things.

David_Evershed

On monday the Greeks will be drawing even more deposits out of the greek banks.

Until now the European Central Bank has been making good the shortfall but given the Greek referendum might reject the final creditors terms, the ECB should stop lending more money to the Greek banks who will go bust if Greece withdraws from the Euro.

So the Greek banks will go bust on Monday and the referendum will be irrelevant.

Mortimer

Danny565 said:

williamglenn said:

Danny565 said:

On the topic, shouldn't the referendum have 3 options? There should be stay in on current terms, stay in on Cameron's proposed renegotiated terms, or get out altogether.

I for one would switch from leaning In to leaning Out, if the only way of staying in meant employment' protections were negotiated away, for example.

That would be irrational. If we left you'd need to rely on the UK government to implement those employment protections, the same as if Cameron negotiated them away.

Yes, but the point is that for me, the employment protections are one of the benefits of the EU which makes it worth stomaching the drawbacks (uncontrolled immigration, endless money wasted on super-bureaucracy, stitch-ups for undeserving greedy big businesses which crowd out more ethical businesses).

If one of the few benefits goes then I won't see much point putting up with the disadvantages anymore.

You mean things like the WTD, which individuals can opt out of anyway? What a strange reason for wanting to be in what is effectively a customs union trying, and failing, to turn itself into an economic-union....

Mortimer

Mortimer said:

Danny565 said:

williamglenn said:

Danny565 said:

On the topic, shouldn't the referendum have 3 options? There should be stay in on current terms, stay in on Cameron's proposed renegotiated terms, or get out altogether.

I for one would switch from leaning In to leaning Out, if the only way of staying in meant employment' protections were negotiated away, for example.

That would be irrational. If we left you'd need to rely on the UK government to implement those employment protections, the same as if Cameron negotiated them away.

Yes, but the point is that for me, the employment protections are one of the benefits of the EU which makes it worth stomaching the drawbacks (uncontrolled immigration, endless money wasted on super-bureaucracy, stitch-ups for undeserving greedy big businesses which crowd out more ethical businesses).

If one of the few benefits goes then I won't see much point putting up with the disadvantages anymore.

You mean things like the WTD, which individuals can opt out of anyway? What a strange reason for wanting to be in what is effectively a customs union trying, and failing, to turn itself into an economic-union....

Just for clarity, I'm in favour of an EU without:

- social policy
- subsidies
- common defence/foreign policy
- legal superiority over sovereign states excepting on issues of customs and employed labour
- sovereign tax harmonisation (VAT included)
- common currency

i.e. just a customs union also allowing for free movement of employed labour, but with drastically reduced external tariffs.

Indigo

Mortimer said:

Danny565 said:

williamglenn said:

Danny565 said:

On the topic, shouldn't the referendum have 3 options? There should be stay in on current terms, stay in on Cameron's proposed renegotiated terms, or get out altogether.

I for one would switch from leaning In to leaning Out, if the only way of staying in meant employment' protections were negotiated away, for example.

That would be irrational. If we left you'd need to rely on the UK government to implement those employment protections, the same as if Cameron negotiated them away.

Yes, but the point is that for me, the employment protections are one of the benefits of the EU which makes it worth stomaching the drawbacks (uncontrolled immigration, endless money wasted on super-bureaucracy, stitch-ups for undeserving greedy big businesses which crowd out more ethical businesses).

If one of the few benefits goes then I won't see much point putting up with the disadvantages anymore.

You mean things like the WTD, which individuals can opt out of anyway? What a strange reason for wanting to be in what is effectively a customs union trying, and failing, to turn itself into an economic-union....

It hasn't even managed to turn itself into a free-trade area, never mind an economic union.

david_kendrick1

If Cameron gets everything he is claimed to want, we should still quit the EU. It is going nowhere. It is yesterday's news. Apart from anything else, we should already have what he is trying to win by negotiation, through natural, on-going discussions. By the EU evolving. The fact that we could not is mostly because the rest of Europe doesn't want it, but partly because we handle the EU so poorly. It is because the UK has to have a set-piece renegotiation---to get back to where we should be anyway--sums up why the UK should vote out.

Businesses cope with all the absurd barriers and difficulties govts put in their way. It is in their genes, like the scorpion. From a business POV, the charade of 'renegogiation' is immaterial. They'll cope with in or out. Impact on jobs? Trivially small, either way.

Never buy the 'we have to belong to the EU to help Europe' meme. We don't need them---they don't need us. You can get on very well with your neighbour without sharing her housekeeping.