The hush of a Spring Evening. Brexit Eve. A nation waits. Tense. Yet hopeful. Listening to that quietly cantering fetal heartbeat.
I think it's more like resignation here in London. Probably street parties outside the M25...
For me, it's standing on the bow of a ship, looking out to sea. We, the crew, have mutinied. The captain has been keelhauled and the rag-tag sailors who didn't quite believe we were doing it are now standing on the deck, looking out at an uncertain future. We may fail - horribly. We may be captured and hung. We may discover our own perfect little island.
For now, all that matters - is we're free.
To quote the white paper: Parliament was always sovereign, it just didn't feel like that.
It's all about feelings. Facts don't matter, they never do.
In theory, we were free to do anything. In practice, we weren't even free to control our own border.
Theoretical sovereignty counts for little in my eyes. It's the exercise of power that counts. And democratic accountability. No point having leaders if you can't make them walk the plank.
On a related note, I now have the Monty Python accountancy shanty in my head.
The hush of a Spring Evening. Brexit Eve. A nation waits. Tense. Yet hopeful. Listening to that quietly cantering fetal heartbeat.
I think it's more like resignation here in London. Probably street parties outside the M25...
For me, it's standing on the bow of a ship, looking out to sea. We, the crew, have mutinied. The captain has been keelhauled and the rag-tag sailors who didn't quite believe we were doing it are now standing on the deck, looking out at an uncertain future. We may fail - horribly. We may be captured and hung. We may discover our own perfect little island.
For now, all that matters - is we're free.
To quote the white paper: Parliament was always sovereign, it just didn't feel like that.
It's all about feelings. Facts don't matter, they never do.
Ah yes I'd forgotten that gem.
Personally speaking, I didn't feel particularly sovereign, as parliament continuously handed over powers to Brussels, while lying about it, and trying to pretend this wasn't happening. Not did I feel especially sovereign when it got so bad the lies could not be sustained any more, and my government was forced to promise me a vote on a proposed "Constitution" in a referendum, a vote which was then denied on the pretext that they'd changed the name of the "Constitution" to "Treaty" even though everyone admitted the two documents were identical.
That didn't feel very sovereign AT ALL. That really felt quite nastily NOT-SOVEREIGN.
In fact that felt like a fucking debasement of democracy, and a grievous insult to the people, because that is what it fucking WAS.
The EU was a disgrace, it was repulsive, it was a disgusting pretendy democracy swiftly morphing into some grotesque elitist shitocracy where laws we didn't want, require, vote for or need were just handed down to us by people we did not elect and could not eject, people we could not name or identify, and all of it enforced by a court sitting in a foreign country where they are only allowed to speak French, a language 90% of us do not understand.
Fuck the EU. We're OUT. And hooray for THAT. And you LOST. HAH.
Yeah. And yet we were sovereign. So your entire premise was wrong. You must feel like a seven year old being told about Santa Claus.
The hush of a Spring Evening. Brexit Eve. A nation waits. Tense. Yet hopeful. Listening to that quietly cantering fetal heartbeat.
I think it's more like resignation here in London. Probably street parties outside the M25...
For me, it's standing on the bow of a ship, looking out to sea. We, the crew, have mutinied. The captain has been keelhauled and the rag-tag sailors who didn't quite believe we were doing it are now standing on the deck, looking out at an uncertain future. We may fail - horribly. We may be captured and hung. We may discover our own perfect little island.
For now, all that matters - is we're free.
To quote the white paper: Parliament was always sovereign, it just didn't feel like that.
It's all about feelings. Facts don't matter, they never do.
Ah yes I'd forgotten that gem.
Personally speaking, I didn't feel particularly sovereign, as parliament continuously handed over powers to Brussels, while lying about it, and trying to pretend this wasn't happening. Not did I feel especially sovereign when it got so bad the lies could not be sustained any more, and my government was forced to promise me a vote on a proposed "Constitution" in a referendum, a vote which was then denied on the pretext that they'd changed the name of the "Constitution" to "Treaty" even though everyone admitted the two documents were identical.
That didn't feel very sovereign AT ALL. That really felt quite nastily NOT-SOVEREIGN.
In fact that felt like a fucking debasement of democracy, and a grievous insult to the people, because that is what it fucking WAS.
The EU was a disgrace, it was repulsive, it was a disgusting pretendy democracy swiftly morphing into some grotesque elitist shitocracy where laws we didn't want, require, vote for or need were just handed down to us by people we did not elect and could not eject, people we could not name or identify, and all of it enforced by a court sitting in a foreign country where they are only allowed to speak French, a language 90% of us do not understand.
Fuck the EU. We're OUT. And hooray for THAT. And you LOST. HAH.
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
Allied forces broke the Geneva Convention in the Normandy campaign when many German prisoners were shot out of hand - which was appalling as the SS slaughter of British & Canadian troops at the time of Dunkirk.
If we end up like Switzerland and Norway, I'll be happy. I think most people will.
Switzerland is having an interesting time equivalence-wise. In short, in order to get it before Jan next year (MiFID) they are doing absolutely everything the ECB tells them to.
Some control.
I think we will keep 90% or more of MiFID/MiFIR. First, it is a key area for UK firms and second, precisely because MiFID is so regulatorily complex nobody would create a parallel system just so British firms could be covered by both.
Well exactly. And all further regulatory measures will be formulated without us and yet we will have to implement them.
You have a point - though you ignore the fact that QMV means that the UK could be overridden / ignored even when a member of the rule-making body - if the City and its interests were the only things that mattered.
But the UK is something more than the City and economic factors are not the only ones which matter.
As the late, great Seamus Heaney said: "We are not simply a credit rating or an economy but a history and a culture, a human population rather than a statistical phenomenon."
No indeed but really was reclaiming the sovereignty which we always had worth giving that all up for?
I don't know. It will depend on what happens once we finally leave.
I think though that those Remainers who focus only on the economic benefits of the EU and the economic losses which may ensue are making the same mistake as generations of British politicians who simply saw the Common Market bit and ignored the political aspects of the European project.
People may well feel that nationhood, governing oneself are just as - if not more important - than simply losing that for the benefits of a single market. It is a very Marxist idea to believe that economic factors are the only ones animating people. History, tradition, the sense of home, culture, the sense of who we are may all be matters which loom rather larger in other people's imagination than they do for those who think that GDP is the most important thing. We are people and not simply economic units. That has been forgotten or ignored or derided by too many people for too long. It is odd that this sense of having an identity, something more than simply the income which is earned, is poo-poohed at the very same time that identity politics has become so important elsewhere.
In short, there has been a lack of emotional intelligence amongst the British ruling class.
The hush of a Spring Evening. Brexit Eve. A nation waits. Tense. Yet hopeful. Listening to that quietly cantering fetal heartbeat.
I think it's more like resignation here in London. Probably street parties outside the M25...
For me, it's standing on the bow of a ship, looking out to sea. We, the crew, have mutinied. The captain has been keelhauled and the rag-tag sailors who didn't quite believe we were doing it are now standing on the deck, looking out at an uncertain future. We may fail - horribly. We may be captured and hung. We may discover our own perfect little island.
For now, all that matters - is we're free.
My attitude is still as it was as I walked to vote that morning.
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
Allied forces broke the Geneva Convention in the Normandy campaign when many German prisoners were shot out of hand - which was appalling as the SS slaughter of British & Canadian troops at the time of Dunkirk.
And the Germans never mistreated Russian or other prisoners pre-1944?
The hush of a Spring Evening. Brexit Eve. A nation waits. Tense. Yet hopeful. Listening to that quietly cantering fetal heartbeat.
I think it's more like resignation here in London. Probably street parties outside the M25...
For me, it's standing on the bow of a ship, looking out to sea. We, the crew, have mutinied. The captain has been keelhauled and the rag-tag sailors who didn't quite believe we were doing it are now standing on the deck, looking out at an uncertain future. We may fail - horribly. We may be captured and hung. We may discover our own perfect little island.
For now, all that matters - is we're free.
To quote the white paper: Parliament was always sovereign, it just didn't feel like that.
It's all about feelings. Facts don't matter, they never do.
It was only true on a technicality as to exercise that sovereignty, first we had to Leave.
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
Allied forces broke the Geneva Convention in the Normandy campaign when many German prisoners were shot out of hand - which was appalling as the SS slaughter of British & Canadian troops at the time of Dunkirk.
They were Nazis, FFS. Actual Nazi soldiers. Shooting them was the right thing to do.
Phew, at least we know where you stand on the punching a Nazi thing.
The hush of a Spring Evening. Brexit Eve. A nation waits. Tense. Yet hopeful. Listening to that quietly cantering fetal heartbeat.
Brexit Eve, I don't know how the Rees-Moggs, Duncan Smith's, Cashes, Redwoods, Carswell's and Farages of this world will be able to sleep tonight with all the excitement, waiting for Santa May to bring their great big present tomorrow!
Tonight it's a bit of luck MrsM is on the Pill.
Yes, we may be seeing a Eurosceptic baby boom in 9 months time!
Why wasn't there a young Hesseltine when we needed one! Very impressive. Admittedly Kate Hoey isn't the brightest candle in the box but Hesseltine is still a class act
(Ch4)
Your spelling is completely fucked, old bean. Have you noticed? Clackton. Hesseltine. Dordoine.
I don't want to worry you, but it may be time to, uh, see the old neurodudes, and get an MRI
BTW, I have managed to book a tasting menu at Michael Caines' new venture at Lympstone Manor in a few weeks - will let you know what I reckon, but from the early reports, you might want to blag a meal there next time you are in the SW....
I've never eaten at any of his proper, signature restaurants (tho I did have a pleasant lunch at an Exeter spin off). I've heard he's great.
While we're talking food, I had literally the best burger of my life the other day. A wagyu beef slider, here, at Inamo, Camden. And they have interactive tables with iPad ordering. Great fun.
The hotel that hosted his Exeter venture burnt down. Here's hoping he has more luck at Lympstone.
He's still behind Raymond Blanc in my affections, but Caines has crafted some superb food. He's certainly up there - you should make the time to try him out.
Yes, that's the hotel I ate in. Nice food, but absurdly overpriced champagne. That fire was a total tragedy, it was one of the oldest hotels in England I think, and one of the last nice bits of Exeter, once a glorious medieval city.
"Exeter was a jewel, and we have destroyed it" - Hermann Goering. C*nt.
Used to be my go to Exeter pad - cheapish rooms, bargain fish and yes quite expensive wine. Ate there whilst on diazepam and morphine for my back and it was a very cheap top notch meal (no wine).
Shaun Rankin at the Club in Jersey was a truly great experience - I had just chosen to shelve the hookselling and get a proper job in London and so the 'own company' woes were miles away, and the eight hour poached egg with caviar was just beautiful. Meal at His London venture (At Flemings?) was lovely, but not quite as nice.
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
Allied forces broke the Geneva Convention in the Normandy campaign when many German prisoners were shot out of hand - which was appalling as the SS slaughter of British & Canadian troops at the time of Dunkirk.
As shown in the Brad Pitt film 'Fury' which was on Ch5 last night
The hush of a Spring Evening. Brexit Eve. A nation waits. Tense. Yet hopeful. Listening to that quietly cantering fetal heartbeat.
I think it's more like resignation here in London. Probably street parties outside the M25...
For me, it's standing on the bow of a ship, looking out to sea. We, the crew, have mutinied. The captain has been keelhauled and the rag-tag sailors who didn't quite believe we were doing it are now standing on the deck, looking out at an uncertain future. We may fail - horribly. We may be captured and hung. We may discover our own perfect little island.
For now, all that matters - is we're free.
To quote the white paper: Parliament was always sovereign, it just didn't feel like that.
It's all about feelings. Facts don't matter, they never do.
Ah yes I'd forgotten that gem.
Personally speaking, I didn't feel particularly sovereign, as parliament continuously handed over powers to Brussels, while lying about it, and trying to pretend this wasn't happening. Not did I feel especially sovereign when it got so bad the lies could not be sustained any more, and my government was forced to promise me a vote on a proposed "Constitution" in a referendum, a vote which was then denied on the pretext that they'd changed the name of the "Constitution" to "Treaty" even though everyone admitted the two documents were identical.
That didn't feel very sovereign AT ALL. That really felt quite nastily NOT-SOVEREIGN.
In fact that felt like a fucking debasement of democracy, and a grievous insult to the people, because that is what it fucking WAS.
The EU was a disgrace, it was repulsive, it was a disgusting pretendy democracy swiftly morphing into some grotesque elitist shitocracy where laws we didn't want, require, vote for or need were just handed down to us by people we did not elect and could not eject, people we could not name or identify, and all of it enforced by a court sitting in a foreign country where they are only allowed to speak French, a language 90% of us do not understand.
Fuck the EU. We're OUT. And hooray for THAT. And you LOST. HAH.
Yeah. And yet we were sovereign. So your entire premise was wrong. You must feel like a seven year old being told about Santa Claus.
My attitude is still as it was as I walked to vote that morning.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
I think I have voted in maybe eight or nine elections, local, mayoral, general, AV and so on.
This is the first time I honestly feel as if my vote made a difference. As if it changed something.
I remember a news report the day after with an old woman on her doorstep deep in our very own rust belt - presumably a Labour safe seat - crying tears of joy. Those were the tears of joy of a woman who had been waiting, patiently, democratically, her whole life, for her vote to actually mean something.
Democracy is often flawed and our British democracy more so. But isn't it marvellous, the way we do things here? In an orderly way, through the ballot box.
This is why we are so fundamentally disconnected from the European project, we don't do bloody revolution nor have we seen dictatorship in modern times. We are an island nation. Our destiny has always been different from continental Europe.
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
Allied forces broke the Geneva Convention in the Normandy campaign when many German prisoners were shot out of hand - which was appalling as the SS slaughter of British & Canadian troops at the time of Dunkirk.
And the Germans never mistreated Russian or other prisoners pre-1944?
"Because the other side did it" is a fucking terrible justification .
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
Allied forces broke the Geneva Convention in the Normandy campaign when many German prisoners were shot out of hand - which was appalling as the SS slaughter of British & Canadian troops at the time of Dunkirk.
They were Nazis, FFS. Actual Nazi soldiers. Shooting them was the right thing to do.
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
Allied forces broke the Geneva Convention in the Normandy campaign when many German prisoners were shot out of hand - which was appalling as the SS slaughter of British & Canadian troops at the time of Dunkirk.
And the Germans never mistreated Russian or other prisoners pre-1944?
But that is never denied and some of those responsible were tried and executed. That did not happen to Allied forces guilty of similar acts. Hypocrisy and double standards?
In the end he amended the speech but the original draft leaked.
At that point I thought, Fuck, he's clueless, he really doesn't know how so many people live. And this was in the end his nemesis, he misjudged the British mood on Brexit. And that is his entire legacy.
Actually that advice was good.
The problem was that the government's economic strategy was dependent upon a huge increase in household borrowing:
' The Office for Budget Responsibility has raised its prediction of total household debt in 2015 by a staggering £303bn since late last year, in the belief that families and individuals will respond to straitened times by extra borrowing. Average household debt based on the OBR figures is forecast to rise to £77,309 by 2015, rather than the £66,291 under previous projections.
Economists say the figures show that George Osborne's drive to slash the public deficit and his predictions on growth are based on assumptions that debt will switch from the government's books to private households – undermining his claims to be a debt-slashing chancellor. '
All you say is true but you don't have to extrapolate too far to see how killing an injured enemy combatant in the situation in this case can easily move to killing an enemy combatant who for example has surrendered, or who is captured during other phases of war. Or... or...
I have no doubt it happened and happens but neither the soldiers on the ground, nor indeed patriotic punters such as your good self (I hesitate to say armchair generals) get to decide when and if it's justified.
Hence the court case which judged, finally, that he was psychologically damaged, not that his actions were justified.
Obviously a moral conundrum. As I say, even on the Panorama there were Marines saying he did wrong as well as those who backed him up. Maybe I was wrong to say he shouldn't have been tried, (I say maybe as I might only be saying that to shut people up) but I still say I am glad he did what he did, and if I met him I would shake his hand and buy him a drink.
Recently watching the World at War it was interesting to see how explicit the orders were to 'take no chances at all' with enemy prisoners during the latter parts of the Pacific campaign. I am sure there were wholesale breaches of the Geneva Convention but given the circumstances and the losses the Americans had suffered from suicidal prisoners and injured Japanese I am certainly not willing to condemn them.
If you read Max Hastings' Nemesis, it's pretty clear US forces broke the Geneva Convention. But then how do you apply it when your opponent does not abide by it? US soldiers could reasonably be expected to risk their lives in battle. They couldn't be expected to risk their lives to save enemy combatants, who were happy to fire on them.
Allied forces broke the Geneva Convention in the Normandy campaign when many German prisoners were shot out of hand - which was appalling as the SS slaughter of British & Canadian troops at the time of Dunkirk.
Oddly Canadian army units didn't go into action until December 1941 in Hong Kong:
If we end up like Switzerland and Norway, I'll be happy. I think most people will.
Switzerland is having an interesting time equivalence-wise. In short, in order to get it before Jan next year (MiFID) they are doing absolutely everything the ECB tells them to.
Some control.
I think we will keep 90% or more of MiFID/MiFIR. First, it is a key area for UK firms and second, precisely because MiFID is so regulatorily complex nobody would create a parallel system just so British firms could be covered by both.
Well exactly. And all further regulatory measures will be formulated without us and yet we will have to implement them.
You have a point - though you ignore the fact that QMV means that the UK could be overridden / ignored even when a member of the rule-making body - if the City and its interests were the only things that mattered.
But the UK is something more than the City and economic factors are not the only ones which matter.
As the late, great Seamus Heaney said: "We are not simply a credit rating or an economy but a history and a culture, a human population rather than a statistical phenomenon."
No indeed but really was reclaiming the sovereignty which we always had worth giving that all up for?
I don't know. It will depend on what happens once we finally leave.
I think though that those Remainers who focus only on the economic benefits of the EU and the economic losses which may ensue are making the same mistake as generations of British politicians who simply saw the Common Market bit and ignored the political aspects of the European project.
People may well feel that nationhood, governing oneself are just as - if not more important - than simply losing that for the benefits of a single market. It is a very Marxist idea to believe that economic factors are the only ones animating people. History, tradition, the sense of home, culture, the sense of who we are may all be matters which loom rather larger in other people's imagination than they do for those who think that GDP is the most important thing. We are people and not simply economic units. That has been forgotten or ignored or derided by too many people for too long. It is odd that this sense of having an identity, something more than simply the income which is earned, is poo-poohed at the very same time that identity politics has become so important elsewhere.
In short, there has been a lack of emotional intelligence amongst the British ruling class.
A bit dramatic. No one lost sight of our identity.
Switzerland is having an interesting time equivalence-wise. In short, in order to get it before Jan next year (MiFID) they are doing absolutely everything the ECB tells them to.
Some control.
I think we will keep 90% or more of MiFID/MiFIR. First, it is a key area for UK firms and second, precisely because MiFID is so regulatorily complex nobody would create a parallel system just so British firms could be covered by both.
Well exactly. And all further regulatory measures will be formulated without us and yet we will have to implement them.
You have a point - though you ignore the fact that QMV means that the UK could be overridden / ignored even when a member of the rule-making body - if the City and its interests were the only things that mattered.
But the UK is something more than the City and economic factors are not the only ones which matter.
As the late, great Seamus Heaney said: "We are not simply a credit rating or an economy but a history and a culture, a human population rather than a statistical phenomenon."
No indeed but really was reclaiming the sovereignty which we always had worth giving that all up for?
I don't know. It will depend on what happens once we finally leave.
I think though that those Remainers who focus only on the economic benefits of the EU and the economic losses which may ensue are making the same mistake as generations of British politicians who simply saw the Common Market bit and ignored the political aspects of the European project.
People may well feel that nationhood, governing oneself are just as - if not more important - than simply losing that for the benefits of a single market. It is a very Marxist idea to believe that economic factors are the only ones animating people. History, tradition, the sense of home, culture, the sense of who we are may all be matters which loom rather larger in other people's imagination than they do for those who think that GDP is the most important thing. We are people and not simply economic units. That has been forgotten or ignored or derided by too many people for too long. It is odd that this sense of having an identity, something more than simply the income which is earned, is poo-poohed at the very same time that identity politics has become so important elsewhere.
In short, there has been a lack of emotional intelligence amongst the British ruling class.
A bit dramatic. No one lost sight of our identity.
You sound like Gordon Brown talking to Gillian Duffy.
Switzerland is having an interesting time equivalence-wise. In short, in order to get it before Jan next year (MiFID) they are doing absolutely everything the ECB tells them to.
Some control.
I think we will keep 90% or more of MiFID/MiFIR. First, it is a key area for UK firms and second, precisecause MiFID is so regulatorily complex nobody would create a parallel system just so British firms could be covered by both.
Well exactly. And all further regulatory measures will be formulated without us and yet we will have to implement them.
You have a point - though you ignore the fact that QMV means that the UK could be overridden / ignored even when a member of the rule-making body - if the City and its interests were the only things that mattered.
But the UK is something more than the City and economic factors are not the only ones which matter.
As the late, great Seamus Heaney said: "We are not simply a credit rating or an economy but a history and a culture, a human population rather than a statistical phenomenon."
No indeed but really was reclaiming the sovereignty which we always had worth giving that all up for?
I don't know. It will depend on what happens once we finally leave.
I think though that those Remainers who focus only on the economic benefits of the EU and the economic losses which may ensue are making the same mistake as generations of British politicians who simply saw the Common Market bit and ignored the political aspects of the European project.
People may well feel that nationhood, governing oneself are just as - if not more important - than simply losing that for the benefits of a single market. It is a very Marxist idea to believe that economic factors are the only ones animating people. History, tradition, the sense of home, culture, the sense of who we are may all be matters which loom rather larger in other people's imagination than they do for those who think that GDP is the most important thing. We are people and not simply economic units. That has been forgotten or ignored or derided by too many people for too long. It is odd that this sense of having an identity, something more than simply the income which is earned, is poo-poohed at the very same time that identity politics has become so important elsewhere.
In short, there has been a lack of emotional intelligence amongst the British ruling class.
A bit dramatic. No one lost sight of our identity.
You sound like Gordon Brown talking to Gillian Duffy.
Comments
Theoretical sovereignty counts for little in my eyes. It's the exercise of power that counts. And democratic accountability. No point having leaders if you can't make them walk the plank.
On a related note, I now have the Monty Python accountancy shanty in my head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YUiBBltOg4
Full speed ahead, Mrs May!
Edit: he doesn't exist.
I think though that those Remainers who focus only on the economic benefits of the EU and the economic losses which may ensue are making the same mistake as generations of British politicians who simply saw the Common Market bit and ignored the political aspects of the European project.
People may well feel that nationhood, governing oneself are just as - if not more important - than simply losing that for the benefits of a single market. It is a very Marxist idea to believe that economic factors are the only ones animating people. History, tradition, the sense of home, culture, the sense of who we are may all be matters which loom rather larger in other people's imagination than they do for those who think that GDP is the most important thing. We are people and not simply economic units. That has been forgotten or ignored or derided by too many people for too long. It is odd that this sense of having an identity, something more than simply the income which is earned, is poo-poohed at the very same time that identity politics has become so important elsewhere.
In short, there has been a lack of emotional intelligence amongst the British ruling class.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
NEW THREAD
Shaun Rankin at the Club in Jersey was a truly great experience - I had just chosen to shelve the hookselling and get a proper job in London and so the 'own company' woes were miles away, and the eight hour poached egg with caviar was just beautiful. Meal at His London venture (At Flemings?) was lovely, but not quite as nice.
This is the first time I honestly feel as if my vote made a difference. As if it changed something.
I remember a news report the day after with an old woman on her doorstep deep in our very own rust belt - presumably a Labour safe seat - crying tears of joy. Those were the tears of joy of a woman who had been waiting, patiently, democratically, her whole life, for her vote to actually mean something.
Democracy is often flawed and our British democracy more so. But isn't it marvellous, the way we do things here? In an orderly way, through the ballot box.
This is why we are so fundamentally disconnected from the European project, we don't do bloody revolution nor have we seen dictatorship in modern times. We are an island nation. Our destiny has always been different from continental Europe.
The problem was that the government's economic strategy was dependent upon a huge increase in household borrowing:
' The Office for Budget Responsibility has raised its prediction of total household debt in 2015 by a staggering £303bn since late last year, in the belief that families and individuals will respond to straitened times by extra borrowing. Average household debt based on the OBR figures is forecast to rise to £77,309 by 2015, rather than the £66,291 under previous projections.
Economists say the figures show that George Osborne's drive to slash the public deficit and his predictions on growth are based on assumptions that debt will switch from the government's books to private households – undermining his claims to be a debt-slashing chancellor. '
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/02/family-debt-burden-government-figures
Cameron really was ignorant about economic politicy - it makes you wonder what they teach on that PPE course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Force
Though I'm sure other individual Canadian soldiers had been in action before that. Not to mention Canadian air force and naval units.