Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
I would rather work on the principle of treat everyone with respect until they prove themselves unworthy. I suppose this is one of those glass half full/half empty perspectives.
Much as I hate to interrupt the discussion of the migration criteria imposed by another country on itself, may I ask the PB Brains Trust about something more pressing? Specifically, movements in USD/GBP over the next week. I purchased some USD at £1=$1.21 prior to May's outline of Brexit approach. This was in the expectation of GBP going south. But that did not happen and a few days later, Trump was inaugurated and USD started going down at the rate of about 2-2.5 cents per week. It's currently at £1=$1.255.
The consensus was that USD would increase throughout the year. Republican presidents usually have a honeymoon period in which USD increases, there are rumours of a rise in US interest rates later in the year, and there's Article 50 in March. So I though USD was a slam dunk. But Trump is a RINO and his remarks and actions are frightening the markets, who prefer calm pursuit of profit to all this shouting and ideological gubbins.
So I'm wondering: will USD continue to drift south? Is Brexit baked in and Trump now the New Abnormal? Anybody got any thoughts?
It's often a good rule that when absolutely everyone expects something to happen, the opposite has a habit of being what actually transpires, because all the people backing the expected have their positions open already. That was my view when we were down at $1.21, and many were taking about $1.10 - as I posted here - and the rise back to $1.25 has made me a few £. In the medium term I wouldn't be surprised to see this trend continue - $1.25 is abnormally low, after all - except that the triggering of A50 is starting to loom and some sort of short term reaction to that is very likely. Hence I am unwinding most of my position; holding a currency position through a big announcement is only for the brave.
Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
Guilty until proven innocent.
Have you ever tried to just walk into someone's home?
And why is that an appropriate analogy?
To many people their nation, their community is an extension of their home.
I get the impression that some people on here have lived extremely feather bedded lives and rarely encounter the realities of either poor quality immigration or life on a lowish income.
I was just thinking that trident missile story that was going to cause Mrs May massive problems disappeared fast didn't it....no idea why...innocent face.
The US has form on this. The entire Japanese community was interned during WW2. 62% were US citizens.
The Germans were into that sort of thing as well during 1939-45?
Dangerously close to a Godwin although admittedly Trumper makes it hard to avoid at times
Apparently Godwin himself thinks Trump is fair game.
From December 2015
"If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician."
Remarkable! Thanks Richard - hope you and yours are all well sir.
@DPJHodges: Does Theresa May seriously think she's going to get away with holding a state visit for Donald Trump after all this.
She'll be lucky to still be PM by then, this is going south very quickly for her. Is going to have to say something.
This is ridiculous - we've had exact parallel encounters with the Saudis who do much worse on a routine basis. It is up to the electors and politicians of America to deal with this entirely domestic fuckup.
Which is typically disingenuous BS from that source. The is nothing to do with right/left - pretty well all presidents have used executive orders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
What makes the policy obnoxious is the policy itself.
Is Daniel Hannan genuinely contending that Executive Orders (or variants thereof) originated with Obama or was an unusually large user of them?
Seriously?
I think it is more the way in which they are used. Up until FDR they were mostly used for things fairly innocuous things and were always within the law - by which I mean they could not make law, only clarify or enforce an existing law. Starting with FDR and Truman there have been attempts to actually make law with EOs, something that generally Congress has opposed on a bi-partisan basis and the Heritage Foundation has a long history of opposing the use of EOs no matter which party the President came from. The SUpreme Court regularly strikes down EOs for this reason.
Obama was criticised for using EOs to actually make law and a number of the EOs he made that fell into this category were under court proceedings when he left office.
Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
Guilty until proven innocent.
Have you ever tried to just walk into someone's home?
And why is that an appropriate analogy?
To many people their nation, their community is an extension of their home.
I get the impression that some people on here have lived extremely feather bedded lives and rarely encounter the realities of either poor quality immigration or life on a lowish income.
Yet others seem never to have got to know immigrants as people, in all their messy rounded complexity, but rather see them as a sort of invading other.
Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
Guilty until proven innocent.
Have you ever tried to just walk into someone's home?
And why is that an appropriate analogy?
To many people their nation, their community is an extension of their home.
I get the impression that some people on here have lived extremely feather bedded lives and rarely encounter the realities of either poor quality immigration or life on a lowish income.
This is ridiculous - we've had exact parallel encounters with the Saudis who do much worse on a routine basis. It is up to the electors and politicians of America to deal with this entirely domestic fuckup.
@jamthrawn: May's silence is tumultuous. It makes us complicit.
When she finally does make a meally mouthed statement, the question will be why she waited so long to do it. And it might be crap as well.
@stephenpollard: I've spent days defending May's Trump meeting. Still do. But unconscionable not to condemn policy that impacts directly on British citizens
Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
Guilty until proven innocent.
Have you ever tried to just walk into someone's home?
And why is that an appropriate analogy?
To many people their nation, their community is an extension of their home.
I get the impression that some people on here have lived extremely feather bedded lives and rarely encounter the realities of either poor quality immigration or life on a lowish income.
Yet others seem never to have got to know immigrants as people, in all their messy rounded complexity, but rather see them as a sort of invading other.
Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
FDR was a Democrat or a Republican?
Democrat. Not sure what difference it makes though. The party positions have changed dramatically over the years. It is worth remembering that up to WW2 the South was strongly democrat and the KKK was founded by Democrats. In its first incarnation one of its aims was the driving out or murder of Republicans. George Wallace the Alabama Governor who resisted integration in the 1960s was a Democrat.
Doesn't the very name 'Democrat' refer to the 'democratic' right to keep slaves? Or is that an urban legend?
I had not heard that one before but the Democratic party was closely tied to the Confederate cause after the Civil War.
Between them, LBJ and Nixon managed to change that, for better and for worse.
Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
Guilty until proven innocent.
Have you ever tried to just walk into someone's home?
And why is that an appropriate analogy?
To many people their nation, their community is an extension of their home.
I get the impression that some people on here have lived extremely feather bedded lives and rarely encounter the realities of either poor quality immigration or life on a lowish income.
I grew up in a town with a very large proportion of immigrants and refugees. The ones that fought alongside us in WW2. The harsh reality was they were just like us, trying to do their best for themselves and their families. You treat people as individuals not faceless masses.
This is ridiculous - we've had exact parallel encounters with the Saudis who do much worse on a routine basis. It is up to the electors and politicians of America to deal with this entirely domestic fuckup.
@jamthrawn: May's silence is tumultuous. It makes us complicit.
When she finally does make a meally mouthed statement, the question will be why she waited so long to do it. And it might be crap as well.
The position the UK is in with the US is more a consequence of Brexit than May's leadership though.
Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
Guilty until proven innocent.
Have you ever tried to just walk into someone's home?
And why is that an appropriate analogy?
To many people their nation, their community is an extension of their home.
I get the impression that some people on here have lived extremely feather bedded lives and rarely encounter the realities of either poor quality immigration or life on a lowish income.
I think that's rather a fair point.
I can't pretend to be on a low income anymore but still have friends who really aren't doing well.
Which is typically disingenuous BS from that source. The is nothing to do with right/left - pretty well all presidents have used executive orders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
What makes the policy obnoxious is the policy itself.
Is Daniel Hannan genuinely contending that Executive Orders (or variants thereof) originated with Obama or was an unusually large user of them?
Seriously?
I think it is more the way in which they are used. Up until FDR they were mostly used for things fairly innocuous things and were always within the law - by which I mean they could not make law, only clarify or enforce an existing law. Starting with FDR and Truman there have been attempts to actually make law with EOs, something that generally Congress has opposed on a bi-partisan basis and the Heritage Foundation has a long history of opposing the use of EOs no matter which party the President came from. The SUpreme Court regularly strikes down EOs for this reason.
Obama was criticised for using EOs to actually make law and a number of the EOs he made that fell into this category were under court proceedings when he left office.
The US Constitution divides powers between a bicameral parliament (the upper house initially appointed) and an elected Monarch, with a powerful judicary arbitrating.
The system (and intrinsic tensions) are largely copied from the late 18th Century Westminster Parliament. The reason why the SC case over A50 was so important is that it sets limits on executive power. We see why this is essential when we look across the pond.
This is ridiculous - we've had exact parallel encounters with the Saudis who do much worse on a routine basis. It is up to the electors and politicians of America to deal with this entirely domestic fuckup.
@jamthrawn: May's silence is tumultuous. It makes us complicit.
When she finally does make a meally mouthed statement, the question will be why she waited so long to do it. And it might be crap as well.
The position the UK is in with the US is more a consequence of Brexit than May's leadership though.
Garbage. You think if Cameron had won and we were going to stay in the EU he would have turned down an invitation to meet Trump in exactly the same way May did. The only difference would have been he wouldn't have had the balls to make the same speech to the Republicans that she made criticising some of Trumps policies.
The position the UK is in with the US is more a consequence of Brexit than May's leadership though.
The position she found herself in is a consequence of Brexit, no question, but her handling of it has been abysmal.
Of course the alternatives on offer would have been far, far, worse, but she is still making an almighty hash of this. History will judge this weekend harshly I feel.
Which is typically disingenuous BS from that source. The is nothing to do with right/left - pretty well all presidents have used executive orders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
What makes the policy obnoxious is the policy itself.
Is Daniel Hannan genuinely contending that Executive Orders (or variants thereof) originated with Obama or was an unusually large user of them?
Seriously?
I think it is more the way in which they are used. Up until FDR they were mostly used for things fairly innocuous things and were always within the law - by which I mean they could not make law, only clarify or enforce an existing law. Starting with FDR and Truman there have been attempts to actually make law with EOs, something that generally Congress has opposed on a bi-partisan basis and the Heritage Foundation has a long history of opposing the use of EOs no matter which party the President came from. The SUpreme Court regularly strikes down EOs for this reason.
Obama was criticised for using EOs to actually make law and a number of the EOs he made that fell into this category were under court proceedings when he left office.
The US Constitution divides powers between a bicameral parliament (the upper house initially appointed) and an elected Monarch, with a powerful judicary arbitrating.
The system (and intrinsic tensions) are largely copied from the late 18th Century Westminster Parliament. The reason why the SC case over A50 was so important is that it sets limits on executive power. We see why this is essential when we look across the pond.
Oh agreed. That is why I am glad the Government lost.
Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
Guilty until proven innocent.
Have you ever tried to just walk into someone's home?
And why is that an appropriate analogy?
To many people their nation, their community is an extension of their home.
I get the impression that some people on here have lived extremely feather bedded lives and rarely encounter the realities of either poor quality immigration or life on a lowish income.
I grew up in a town with a very large proportion of immigrants and refugees. The ones that fought alongside us in WW2. The harsh reality was they were just like us, trying to do their best for themselves and their families. You treat people as individuals not faceless masses.
I agree but I have no time for the white middle class who live in they white middle class area and tell me poor mass immigration is wonderful.
Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
Guilty until proven innocent.
Have you ever tried to just walk into someone's home?
And why is that an appropriate analogy?
To many people their nation, their community is an extension of their home.
I get the impression that some people on here have lived extremely feather bedded lives and rarely encounter the realities of either poor quality immigration or life on a lowish income.
I think that's rather a fair point.
I can't pretend to be on a low income anymore but still have friends who really aren't doing well.
Are we in for another round of PB Four Yorkshiremen?
Which is typically disingenuous BS from that source. The is nothing to do with right/left - pretty well all presidents have used executive orders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
What makes the policy obnoxious is the policy itself.
Is Daniel Hannan genuinely contending that Executive Orders (or variants thereof) originated with Obama or was an unusually large user of them?
Seriously?
I think it is more the way in which they are used. Up until FDR they were mostly used for things fairly innocuous things and were always within the law - by which I mean they could not make law, only clarify or enforce an existing law. Starting with FDR and Truman there have been attempts to actually make law with EOs, something that generally Congress has opposed on a bi-partisan basis and the Heritage Foundation has a long history of opposing the use of EOs no matter which party the President came from. The SUpreme Court regularly strikes down EOs for this reason.
Obama was criticised for using EOs to actually make law and a number of the EOs he made that fell into this category were under court proceedings when he left office.
The most serious (and dangerous) example was when Obama not merely declared that it was the right of the Executive branch to *not* enforce a federal law he didn't agree with, but pushed through a court case in which it was settled that it would be illegal for the states themselves to enforce those laws.
Essentially he set it up so that a president can (in effect) undo a federal law he/she doesn't like. He/she can tell the Executive branch (federal law enforcement) to ignore it. And can stop the states enforcing the law...
Which is a genuinely scary power. Let alone in the hands of Trump, say. What's the quote...
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
Guilty until proven innocent.
Have you ever tried to just walk into someone's home?
And why is that an appropriate analogy?
To many people their nation, their community is an extension of their home.
I get the impression that some people on here have lived extremely feather bedded lives and rarely encounter the realities of either poor quality immigration or life on a lowish income.
Yet others seem never to have got to know immigrants as people, in all their messy rounded complexity, but rather see them as a sort of invading other.
Which is typically disingenuous BS from that source. The is nothing to do with right/left - pretty well all presidents have used executive orders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
What makes the policy obnoxious is the policy itself.
Is Daniel Hannan genuinely contending that Executive Orders (or variants thereof) originated with Obama or was an unusually large user of them?
Seriously?
I think it is more the way in which they are used. Up until FDR they were mostly used for things fairly innocuous things and were always within the law - by which I mean they could not make law, only clarify or enforce an existing law. Starting with FDR and Truman there have been attempts to actually make law with EOs, something that generally Congress has opposed on a bi-partisan basis and the Heritage Foundation has a long history of opposing the use of EOs no matter which party the President came from. The SUpreme Court regularly strikes down EOs for this reason.
Obama was criticised for using EOs to actually make law and a number of the EOs he made that fell into this category were under court proceedings when he left office.
"Up until FDR they were mostly used for things fairly innocuous things and were always within the law" Innocuous, like the Emancipation Proclamation, for instance ?
If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.
What should she have done differently?
She should have maintained a distance and not try to give an enthusiastic impression about their meeting. Always use the long spoon when you sup with the devil !
She was a model of icy distance compared to Blair Brown and Cameron's respective feats of rectal mountaineering with their respective POTUSes.
I'd imagine Cameron at least would have dealt far better with the situation. Sure I recall both he and Osborne making their views on Trump very clear.
I don't think so. I'd have thought the trip to the States would have been much the same, albeit a bit frostier, and without the whole "holding hands" thing to distract. Maybe Cameron would have had a statement out, but not a substantive one. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this situation can't resolved in fifteen minutes?
Yeah No 10 would be very wise to actually say something on this issue, Even if it is to disagree with Trump, which May said she would do in public if necessary. Doubly so if British citizens without any other nationality are being banned.
It is sickening to witness the snivelling, skin crawling, sinister sycophancy from the PB Leaver Trumptons ramp up a level with every passing day. The pathetic, cap-doffing snotty slugs sliming up to the Grade A twat is a truly disgusting spectacle. Eurgh.
Why are we surprised? Half the time the discussions on this site revolve around reviewing the integration of minorities. It's even more odd in the case of minorities who are from Commonwealth countries.
It's always been a heavily Right leaning site - in recent years though the loons have drowned out the voices of sensible conservatives.
Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
Guilty until proven innocent.
Have you ever tried to just walk into someone's home?
And why is that an appropriate analogy?
To many people their nation, their community is an extension of their home.
I get the impression that some people on here have lived extremely feather bedded lives and rarely encounter the realities of either poor quality immigration or life on a lowish income.
Yet others seem never to have got to know immigrants as people, in all their messy rounded complexity, but rather see them as a sort of invading other.
Doesn't the very name 'Democrat' refer to the 'democratic' right to keep slaves? Or is that an urban legend?
I think the timing's wrong. The Democratic Party started in the 1820's. Andrew Jackson was referred to as the "Democratic Republican"[1] candidate in 1832. Slavery as a political issue was bubbling under but became big around the 1840s/1850s, cumulating in the American Civil War in the 1860's.
Which is typically disingenuous BS from that source. The is nothing to do with right/left - pretty well all presidents have used executive orders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
What makes the policy obnoxious is the policy itself.
Is Daniel Hannan genuinely contending that Executive Orders (or variants thereof) originated with Obama or was an unusually large user of them?
Seriously?
I think it is more the way in which they are used. Up until FDR they were mostly used for things fairly innocuous things and were always within the law - by which I mean they could not make law, only clarify or enforce an existing law. Starting with FDR and Truman there have been attempts to actually make law with EOs, something that generally Congress has opposed on a bi-partisan basis and the Heritage Foundation has a long history of opposing the use of EOs no matter which party the President came from. The SUpreme Court regularly strikes down EOs for this reason.
Obama was criticised for using EOs to actually make law and a number of the EOs he made that fell into this category were under court proceedings when he left office.
"Up until FDR they were mostly used for things fairly innocuous things and were always within the law" Innocuous, like the Emancipation Proclamation, for instance ?
I said mostly. Go look at the lists of EOs signed by Presidents since FDR and you will find that very few of them actually make new law. Those that do are usually struck down by the SC.
As I suspect more than a few of these by Trump will be.
It is sickening to witness the snivelling, skin crawling, sinister sycophancy from the PB Leaver Trumptons ramp up a level with every passing day. The pathetic, cap-doffing snotty slugs sliming up to the Grade A twat is a truly disgusting spectacle. Eurgh.
Basically they are racists! Trump is their hero. They have finally found a voice.
The US has form on this. The entire Japanese community was interned during WW2. 62% were US citizens.
The Germans were into that sort of thing as well during 1939-45?
Dangerously close to a Godwin although admittedly Trumper makes it hard to avoid at times
Apparently Godwin himself thinks Trump is fair game.
From December 2015
"If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician."
Remarkable! Thanks Richard - hope you and yours are all well sir.
Fine thanks old chap. And it is really nice to be able to spend a few hours away rom work back on PB.
Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
Guilty until proven innocent.
Have you ever tried to just walk into someone's home?
And why is that an appropriate analogy?
To many people their nation, their community is an extension of their home.
I get the impression that some people on here have lived extremely feather bedded lives and rarely encounter the realities of either poor quality immigration or life on a lowish income.
Yet others seem never to have got to know immigrants as people,
The kind of people who describe everyone as 'immigrants', I'd guess.
@faisalislam: no 10 new line on Trump Executive Order refugee ban: "we do not agree with this kind of approach and it is not one we will be taking" ...
Some of the people on here are hysterical, she's been busy in Turkey. Give her time to read the executive order, understand the implications and then in her own time respond. A few hours or even a day wait does very little harm, beyond that of the order itself.
May got off the plane just an hour or so ago. Christ, isn't she allowed a toilet break?
I wouldn't be surprised if they were confirming that it is true that some Brits would be banned, because it doesn't say that in the EO and like because twitter is never wrong....However, it does seem like at the very least immigration officials have interpreted as meaning born in one of those countries.
What she has to do now is make a proper statement tomorrow or Monday when armed with all the facts and hopefully talked to the US.
@faisalislam: no 10 new line on Trump Executive Order refugee ban: "we do not agree with this kind of approach and it is not one we will be taking" ...
Is this the global leadership May was promising us the other day?
I think this is the wrong line to take. It doesn't matter whether it is hitting Britons or not. It isn't wrong just because it hits us but because it is wrong in principle.
May got off the plane just an hour or so ago. Christ, isn't she allowed a toilet break?
I wouldn't be surprised if they were confirming that it is true that some Brits would be banned, because it doesn't say that in the EO and like because twitter is never wrong and just because somebody is tw@ttering about it you should instantly believe it.
However, it does seem like at the very least immigration officials have interpreted as meaning born in one of those countries.
What she has to do now is make a proper statement tomorrow or Monday when armed with all the facts and hopefully talked to the US.
As someone said a few days ago, it's now very difficult to interpret the "news". We are living in a world of bullshit, exaggeration, point-scoring and fake outrage on BOTH sides.
It takes time to establish the facts.
And it's unlikely the White House briefed allies in advance. See my earlier point about the utter incompetence of team Trump.
I think this is the wrong line to take. It doesn't matter whether it is hitting Britons or not. It isn't wrong just because it hits us but because it is wrong in principle.
I think you could read her tweet that way actually, but yes.
The position the UK is in with the US is more a consequence of Brexit than May's leadership though.
The position she found herself in is a consequence of Brexit, no question, but her handling of it has been abysmal.
Of course the alternatives on offer would have been far, far, worse, but she is still making an almighty hash of this. History will judge this weekend harshly I feel.
Theresa is doing a fine job. She will make a valiant effort to extract us from the EU and is already building links with nations outside the EU. Her visit to Turkey was a master stroke - building a defence relationship to anchor Turkey into NATO and building commercial links at the same time.
Doesn't the very name 'Democrat' refer to the 'democratic' right to keep slaves? Or is that an urban legend?
I think the timing's wrong. The Democratic Party started in the 1820's. Andrew Jackson was referred to as the "Democratic Republican"[1] candidate in 1832. Slavery as a political issue was bubbling under but became big around the 1840s/1850s, cumulating in the American Civil War in the 1860's.
It is confusing. America's original political parties were the Federalists (which party more or less died with Hamilton), and the Republicans (also, confusingly, know as the Democratic Republicans). The latter were the party of Jefferson and the slave owning south.
May got off the plane just an hour or so ago. Christ, isn't she allowed a toilet break?
I wouldn't be surprised if they were confirming that it is true that some Brits would be banned, because it doesn't say that in the EO and like because twitter is never wrong and just because somebody is tw@ttering about it you should instantly believe it.
However, it does seem like at the very least immigration officials have interpreted as meaning born in one of those countries.
What she has to do now is make a proper statement tomorrow or Monday when armed with all the facts and hopefully talked to the US.
As someone said a few days ago, it's now very difficult to interpret the "news". We are living in a world of bullshit, exaggeration, point-scoring and fake outrage on BOTH sides.
It takes time to establish the facts.
And it's unlikely the White House briefed allies in advance. See my earlier point about the utter incompetence of team Trump.
I bet all this born in / dual citizenship etc issues are all due to utter incompetence of Team Trump not making it clear what the rules were to be, because they hadn't thought through the obvious exception like dual citizenship.
The reaction this evening in the US tells me that this could well be the first of many bloody noses for Trump. Executive Orders are difficult at the best of times unless they are uncontroversial. I can't see this one lasting very long at all and the open defiance from many officials is going to be a growing headache for Trump.
The reaction this evening in the US tells me that this could well be the first of many bloody noses for Trump. Executive Orders are difficult at the best of times unless they are uncontroversial. I can't see this one lasting very long at all and the open defiance from many officials is going to be a growing headache for Trump.
Perhaps thats the plan? Then he build another us vs them scenario.
Actually watching the portillo in America show at the moment... the horrible treatment of Native Americans was far more appalling than anything going on at the moment
Actually watching the portillo in America show at the moment... the horrible treatment of Native Americans was far more appalling than anything going on at the moment
Not sure what point you are trying to make here Sam. The fact that in another age people did horrible things does not excuse their descendants doing horrible things today.
Actually watching the portillo in America show at the moment... the horrible treatment of Native Americans was far more appalling than anything going on at the moment
Doesn't the very name 'Democrat' refer to the 'democratic' right to keep slaves? Or is that an urban legend?
I think the timing's wrong. The Democratic Party started in the 1820's. Andrew Jackson was referred to as the "Democratic Republican"[1] candidate in 1832. Slavery as a political issue was bubbling under but became big around the 1840s/1850s, cumulating in the American Civil War in the 1860's.
It is confusing. America's original political parties were the Federalists (which party more or less died with Hamilton), and the Republicans (also, confusingly, know as the Democratic Republicans). The latter were the party of Jefferson and the slave owning south.
Also interesting looking at the lists of federal officials including presidents who have faced impeachment. Two of the reasons for impeachment are 'abuse of power' and 'making unlawful rulings'.
Someone should try that with Trump if this carries on.
Actually watching the portillo in America show at the moment... the horrible treatment of Native Americans was far more appalling than anything going on at the moment
Not sure what point you are trying to make here Sam. The fact that in another age people did horrible things does not excuse their descendants doing horrible things today.
Are we still allowed to say we think some things are worse than others? Or does the latest horror always have to be the worst ever?
Actually watching the portillo in America show at the moment... the horrible treatment of Native Americans was far more appalling than anything going on at the moment
Actually watching the portillo in America show at the moment... the horrible treatment of Native Americans was far more appalling than anything going on at the moment
Not sure what point you are trying to make here Sam. The fact that in another age people did horrible things does not excuse their descendants doing horrible things today.
Are we still allowed to say we think some things are worse than others? Or does the latest horror always have to be the worst ever?
Not at all. I just didn't see the point you were trying to make. We all generally know that things were more horrible in the past. It is not an excuse for things today.
Which is typically disingenuous BS from that source. The is nothing to do with right/left - pretty well all presidents have used executive orders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
What makes the policy obnoxious is the policy itself.
Is Daniel Hannan genuinely contending that Executive Orders (or variants thereof) originated with Obama or was an unusually large user of them?
Seriously?
I think it is more the way in which they are used. Up until FDR they were mostly used for things fairly innocuous things and were always within the law - by which I mean they could not make law, only clarify or enforce an existing law. Starting with FDR and Truman there have been attempts to actually make law with EOs, something that generally Congress has opposed on a bi-partisan basis and the Heritage Foundation has a long history of opposing the use of EOs no matter which party the President came from. The SUpreme Court regularly strikes down EOs for this reason.
Obama was criticised for using EOs to actually make law and a number of the EOs he made that fell into this category were under court proceedings when he left office.
The first thing I thought of was LBJ and the Vietnam War
Actually watching the portillo in America show at the moment... the horrible treatment of Native Americans was far more appalling than anything going on at the moment
Not sure what point you are trying to make here Sam. The fact that in another age people did horrible things does not excuse their descendants doing horrible things today.
Are we still allowed to say we think some things are worse than others? Or does the latest horror always have to be the worst ever?
Not at all. I just didn't see the point you were trying to make. We all generally know that things were more horrible in the past. It is not an excuse for things today.
I just happen to be watching a program that is about the mistreatment of native Americans, and thought that the way they were treated was worse than what goes on today... that's why I said it... that's so obvious it's not allowed?
Much as I hate to interrupt the discussion of the migration criteria imposed by another country on itself, may I ask the PB Brains Trust about something more pressing? Specifically, movements in USD/GBP over the next week. I purchased some USD at £1=$1.21 prior to May's outline of Brexit approach. This was in the expectation of GBP going south. But that did not happen and a few days later, Trump was inaugurated and USD started going down at the rate of about 2-2.5 cents per week. It's currently at £1=$1.255.
The consensus was that USD would increase throughout the year. Republican presidents usually have a honeymoon period in which USD increases, there are rumours of a rise in US interest rates later in the year, and there's Article 50 in March. So I though USD was a slam dunk. But Trump is a RINO and his remarks and actions are frightening the markets, who prefer calm pursuit of profit to all this shouting and ideological gubbins.
So I'm wondering: will USD continue to drift south? Is Brexit baked in and Trump now the New Abnormal? Anybody got any thoughts?
It's often a good rule that when absolutely everyone expects something to happen, the opposite has a habit of being what actually transpires, because all the people backing the expected have their positions open already. That was my view when we were down at $1.21, and many were taking about $1.10 - as I posted here - and the rise back to $1.25 has made me a few £. In the medium term I wouldn't be surprised to see this trend continue - $1.25 is abnormally low, after all - except that the triggering of A50 is starting to loom and some sort of short term reaction to that is very likely. Hence I am unwinding most of my position; holding a currency position through a big announcement is only for the brave.
Thank you. My options are a) close the position and suck up the approx £300 loss, or b) hold it open as a just-in-case. As ever, I shall vacillate then claim I planned it all along. I love it when a plan comes together...
Actually watching the portillo in America show at the moment... the horrible treatment of Native Americans was far more appalling than anything going on at the moment
Not sure what point you are trying to make here Sam. The fact that in another age people did horrible things does not excuse their descendants doing horrible things today.
Are we still allowed to say we think some things are worse than others? Or does the latest horror always have to be the worst ever?
Not at all. I just didn't see the point you were trying to make. We all generally know that things were more horrible in the past. It is not an excuse for things today.
I just happen to be watching a program that is about the mistreatment of native Americans, and thought that the way they were treated was worse than what goes on today... that's why I said it... that's so obvious it's not allowed?
Actually watching the portillo in America show at the moment... the horrible treatment of Native Americans was far more appalling than anything going on at the moment
Not sure what point you are trying to make here Sam. The fact that in another age people did horrible things does not excuse their descendants doing horrible things today.
Are we still allowed to say we think some things are worse than others? Or does the latest horror always have to be the worst ever?
Not at all. I just didn't see the point you were trying to make. We all generally know that things were more horrible in the past. It is not an excuse for things today.
I just happen to be watching a program that is about the mistreatment of native Americans, and thought that the way they were treated was worse than what goes on today... that's why I said it... that's so obvious it's not allowed?
Actually watching the portillo in America show at the moment... the horrible treatment of Native Americans was far more appalling than anything going on at the moment
Not sure what point you are trying to make here Sam. The fact that in another age people did horrible things does not excuse their descendants doing horrible things today.
Are we still allowed to say we think some things are worse than others? Or does the latest horror always have to be the worst ever?
Not at all. I just didn't see the point you were trying to make. We all generally know that things were more horrible in the past. It is not an excuse for things today.
I just happen to be watching a program that is about the mistreatment of native Americans, and thought that the way they were treated was worse than what goes on today... that's why I said it... that's so obvious it's not allowed?
Faux naivety from immigrant bashing isam.
Get it right or go to bed! I am bashing immigrants actually, unless you think the native Americans were not native
Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
Being in an interracial marriage isnt a litmus test for integration. What people are saying quite rightly is that an integrated minority intermarries freely and the percentage of people from that minority intermarrying is a litmus test.
if minority a intermarries 0% , minority b intermarries 20% and minority c intermarries 30% then you have grounds for thing minority c has embraced a culture of freedom more than b and that minority a really isnt integrating at all
Comments
I get the impression that some people on here have lived extremely feather bedded lives and rarely encounter the realities of either poor quality immigration or life on a lowish income.
Obama was criticised for using EOs to actually make law and a number of the EOs he made that fell into this category were under court proceedings when he left office.
When she finally does make a meally mouthed statement, the question will be why she waited so long to do it. And it might be crap as well.
https://twitter.com/dmiliband/status/825485457727320066
@stephenpollard: I've spent days defending May's Trump meeting. Still do. But unconscionable not to condemn policy that impacts directly on British citizens
I can't pretend to be on a low income anymore but still have friends who really aren't doing well.
The system (and intrinsic tensions) are largely copied from the late 18th Century Westminster Parliament. The reason why the SC case over A50 was so important is that it sets limits on executive power. We see why this is essential when we look across the pond.
Of course the alternatives on offer would have been far, far, worse, but she is still making an almighty hash of this. History will judge this weekend harshly I feel.
https://youtu.be/Xe1a1wHxTyo
Essentially he set it up so that a president can (in effect) undo a federal law he/she doesn't like. He/she can tell the Executive branch (federal law enforcement) to ignore it. And can stop the states enforcing the law...
Which is a genuinely scary power. Let alone in the hands of Trump, say. What's the quote...
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
https://twitter.com/vonny_bravo/status/825402282460196869
@Smur_OK: @vonny_bravo @Liz8698 @guardian You could start a crowd funding page if it upsets you so much.
@vonny_bravo: We did. And we raised the amount in under 30 mins. @Smur_OK @Liz8698 @guardian
The real question is what danger does the special relationship put us in given Trump's hamfisted approach to everything, including global affairs?
What if he strays into a shooting war?
But it's fair to say the liberal media were never going to give him a fair hearing.
Innocuous, like the Emancipation Proclamation, for instance ?
They all break the rules of the club when it suits them
[1] http://www.oldpoliticals.com/ItemImages/000010/11599_lg.jpeg
As I suspect more than a few of these by Trump will be.
Oh wait... that was Labour.
Dumb policies not the preserve of the right.
@ZoraSuleman: Theresa May does ``not agree'' with Donald Trump's refugee ban and will make representations if it hits Britons
I actually feel encouraged this weekend.
One week of Trump has shown him to be a laughing stock and an administrative disaster.
https://twitter.com/SimonAdamsR2P/status/825469121223606272
Christ, isn't she allowed a toilet break?
What she has to do now is make a proper statement tomorrow or Monday when armed with all the facts and hopefully talked to the US.
It takes time to establish the facts.
And it's unlikely the White House briefed allies in advance. See my earlier point about the utter incompetence of team Trump.
https://twitter.com/tparsi/status/825405243567513600
Someone should try that with Trump if this carries on.
https://twitter.com/roguepotusstaff/status/825509928781623296
if minority a intermarries 0% , minority b intermarries 20% and minority c intermarries 30% then you have grounds for thing minority c has embraced a culture of freedom more than b and that minority a really isnt integrating at all