"The Westminster terrorist had a key role at a mosque that urges Muslims to take up weapons to gain “victory over the Jews and the rest of the enemies of Islam”.
Is this not hate speech / incitement?
It is tolerated because the people who expose it are disliked by the establishment
I would agree that re-entry as policy at the next election would bre a mistake, but a policy of joining the EEA is really quite sensible.
Apart from anything else, I don't think that the EU would let us rejoinn for at least another generation.
I agree. Once we are out, we are out. EEA membership is something I would back and it's why I was not that bothered about losing the referendum as, foolishly, I believed that is where sensible Tories would take us to. I did not imagine - again foolishly in retrospect - that May would prioritise her coverage in the right wing Tory press over everything else.
Do you think the EEA will work for us and that we would mechanically implement all rules from the EU without any input at all? We're not Norway who are willing to outsource a large part of their external relations. In any case the people running Norway think EEA is a nonsense but accept it as the necessary compromise with those that don't want full EU membership.
On the whole, I think we're better with Canada Plus, although that arrangement definitely favours the EU side more than us. In the meantime we will need a transition, which effectively will be EEA, so I guess we will have to make that work. The transition to Canada Plus will be a lot longer than three years and may not happen at all. The EU has put measures to limit the EEA style transition to three years, which may be just enough for rEU countries to adapt to the disintegration. It won't be for us, which is probably the point.
As I have said many times, we will get to keep all the bits they voted against , lose any good bits and pay more for it. Another real mess by the Tories for sure.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Eh? There was a general election in the middle. Things definitely have changed since 2014. No doubt about that
A general election which saw the government re-elected confirming it's pre existing policy.
But a re-election which the font of all Scotch wisdom for PB's faux Unionists said was looking unlikely. During a televised indy debate. Less than 2 weeks before the referendum.
'Why the Scottish Tory leader said it's unlikely the Conservatives will win the general election'
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
May, should grant the referendum. SNP are a one trick pony, who have proved, less than adequate at the actual day to day running of a country
Ukip no longer have a purpose. The LDs do - they survive to howl at the moon as they attempt to subvert democracy.
So sad. A once great party reduced to this as their raison d'etre.
Oh, and greetings from sunny Sydney.
It is perfectly democratic to try to garner support for a change in Britains policy towards our European neighbours.
I am less convinced by Farrons support for Trump's "Wag the Dog" conversion to bombing Assad. America is now bombing both sides in the Syrian Civil War, with no plan as to what to do next.
Credit where it is due, Nuttall has condemned the bombing, alongside Jezza and the Green Party.
With the Tories heading right and Labour destroying itself on the far left, the gap in the centre is getting bigger and bigger. It won't happen quickly, but the LDs must fancy their chances over the longer term of filling it.
I don't think the Tories are heading right in terms of economic policy. Theresa May's approach appears to be far more Hestletinian than Cameron & Osborne and suggests a shift to the left.Admittedly she has yet to reverse Osborne's programme - but appears disinclined to go further down that road.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I wouldn't go that far with Tim. He certainly has quite a spring in his step, and the emphasis on pavement politics is paying dividends, but he does have a tendency to formulate kneejerk policy on the hoof. His response to Trumps missile attack was lacking in clarity. What has changed since he last abstained on bombing the Middle East, or the Kennedy anti-war period?
His reaction to Brexit was similar, he seemed to announce that the party would campaign to rejoin before any real reflection or consideration within the party. We are an internationalist party, but also a democratic one. Pro EU is fine, but rejoining can only be a long term vision. We need to convince the British people first, and focus on the positives of membership not the negatives of Brexit. "I told you so" will only change a few minds.
What has changed since Kennedy was the immediate usage of chemical weapons. Had Saddam used chemical weapons in 2002/3 then even Kennedy might have backed the war.
In 2013 Farron abstained on bombing Assad, despite Assad having used nerve gas on civilians and IS not yet being the major opposition. What has changed beside his mind?
Bear in mind that even May was poo pooing military action just a few days ago. We truly are Trumps poodle.
In 2013, the proposal was to join the US in a military campaign to overthrow Assad (despite the fact that the opposition to Assad was a splintered group including Al Qaeda) and risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive. Trump's intervention is not that at all. If Trump moved to a military campaign to overthrow Assad (which he won't) Farron wouldn't support him.
... As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave ...
100% of us did not vote to leave. It was 52:48
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
Do leavers somehow fear that the purity of their Brexit will be compromised if some people retain their EU citizenship?
I recall when the idea was first floated mostly those of a soft leave disposition like SeanT (at the time) felt it was almost too good an idea to pass up if it were genuinely on offer, essentially pay a fee to retain EU citizenship rights if you want. I would imagine the government would take the view it is not a good idea to have masses of citizens being subject to other rules and other citizens not - general dual citizenship is not of the same level, and Northern Ireland is sui generis - causing all sorts of administrative and legal complications, and giving the EU just cause to continually interfere.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
With the expectation that they would stay in the EU. No-one actually believed that the vote would go the way it did. If they had ben voting based on the fact that they were definitely out of EU, a major major plank of the unionist NO campaign, then the vote would have been completely different.
... As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave ...
100% of us did not vote to leave. It was 52:48
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
No, but we are all bound by the consequences of leaving. As for people paying to retain their rights, I wonder just how many people would do that. I also wonder how it would work. You have to pay yearly, but that gives you the right to live/work anywhere in the EU? What if you stop paying your subs, are you then immediately deported?
A better system would be to have visa free travel (such as through a waiver program like the US and Australia), and a low bar for skilled immigration.
... As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave ...
100% of us did not vote to leave. It was 52:48
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
Do leavers somehow fear that the purity of their Brexit will be compromised if some people retain their EU citizenship?
I recall when the idea was first floated mostly those of a soft leave disposition like SeanT (at the time) felt it was almost too good an idea to pass up if it were genuinely on offer, essentially pay a fee to retain EU citizenship rights if you want. I would imagine the government would take the view it is not a good idea to have masses of citizens being subject to other rules and other citizens not - general dual citizenship is not of the same level, and Northern Ireland is sui generis - causing all sorts of administrative and legal complications, and giving the EU just cause to continually interfere.
I had seen somewhere that the EU could theoretically offer this unilaterally and the British government couldn't really do anything to stop it. Not an expert so not sure if that holds water or not.
In any case, It's unlikely to pass on the EU end because Eastern European member states will not want to see special treatment for brits considering we are expressly curbing rights for their nationals.
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
May, should grant the referendum. SNP are a one trick pony, who have proved, less than adequate at the actual day to day running of a country
Whether we'd win or lose, it is genuinely the case it is not a great idea to hold one, on the basis of the Brexit vote, when it is unclear what sort of situation Scots in the UK will be existing in come May 2019. It doesn't matter to the die hard independence supporters, but there are people for whom a less than ideal situation (that is, Brexit) is mitigated sufficiently by a deal such that they would not wish to go Indy. Of course, there are also people for whom the deal is such they would feel going Indy is now the best option. Waiting does make sense.
But there is no downside for the SNP in calling for one sooner - they would be fairly confident of winning an early one, and agitating for it even if they don't get it doesn't seem to be harming their image any.
It's fair to say a large part of the Scottish electorate are fed up to their back teeth with talk of another independence referendum. Possibly even a slight majority. However if there is a referendum you can only answer the question placed in front of you, whether you think that question is stupid, or in this case disrespectful of a decision that has already been made. Unless the referendum is properly constituted it will be substantially ignored and invalid.
I think this is a case of the SNP believing their own propaganda and thinking they represent Scotland. They don't. They represent a large faction in Scotland.
Where is there any evidence, other than spouting by the unionist party leaders, that people are fed up with it. I see plenty of people who want it and at least as many who don't. You getting your info from the Scotsman, or Dugdale/Rennie/Davidson.
Ukip no longer have a purpose. The LDs do - they survive to howl at the moon as they attempt to subvert democracy.
So sad. A once great party reduced to this as their raison d'etre.
Oh, and greetings from sunny Sydney.
It is perfectly democratic to try to garner support for a change in Britains policy towards our European neighbours.
I am less convinced by Farrons support for Trump's "Wag the Dog" conversion to bombing Assad. America is now bombing both sides in the Syrian Civil War, with no plan as to what to do next.
Credit where it is due, Nuttall has condemned the bombing, alongside Jezza and the Green Party.
With the Tories heading right and Labour destroying itself on the far left, the gap in the centre is getting bigger and bigger. It won't happen quickly, but the LDs must fancy their chances over the longer term of filling it.
I don't think the Tories are heading right in terms of economic policy. Theresa May's approach appears to be far more Hestletinian than Cameron & Osborne and suggests a shift to the left.Admittedly she has yet to reverse Osborne's programme - but appears disinclined to go further down that road.
It's been a change in rhetoric more than actions so far. But that is still progress, a change in rhetoric shifts the frame of the argument making it easier for a party of the left to argue its case.
Ukip no longer have a purpose. The LDs do - they survive to howl at the moon as they attempt to subvert democracy.
So sad. A once great party reduced to this as their raison d'etre.
Oh, and greetings from sunny Sydney.
It is perfectly democratic to try to garner support for a change in Britains policy towards our European neighbours.
I am less convinced by Farrons support for Trump's "Wag the Dog" conversion to bombing Assad. America is now bombing both sides in the Syrian Civil War, with no plan as to what to do next.
Credit where it is due, Nuttall has condemned the bombing, alongside Jezza and the Green Party.
With the Tories heading right and Labour destroying itself on the far left, the gap in the centre is getting bigger and bigger. It won't happen quickly, but the LDs must fancy their chances over the longer term of filling it.
But weirdly they're not. Stubbornly stuck on 10%. The coalition casts a long shadow and Labour still present by far the most likely alternative
Labour is killing itself. At some stage there will be a tipping point when all but the most obstinate far leftist will realise there is no way back for the party. Right now, a lot of people on the centre left are betting that Corbyn will be gone before the next GE. But with McCluskey set to be strengthened by re-election, that is now looking a lot less likely. I do think Farron is a problem for the LDs, but he is not in insurmountable one.
So you no longer expect Corbyn to be ousted next year? The re-election of McCluskey would be no surprise. I am intrigued as to why you have changed your mind on that - if indeed you have!
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
With the expectation that they would stay in the EU. No-one actually believed that the vote would go the way it did.
While accepting if it was seen as likely that the vote on the EU would go the way it did the Indy vote might have gone differently, plenty of people in England thought for years that in a referendum we would vote for Brexit, and I have to assume that some numbers in Scotland thought the same.
... As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave ...
100% of us did not vote to leave. It was 52:48
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
Do leavers somehow fear that the purity of their Brexit will be compromised if some people retain their EU citizenship?
I recall when the idea was first floated mostly those of a soft leave disposition like SeanT (at the time) felt it was almost too good an idea to pass up if it were genuinely on offer, essentially pay a fee to retain EU citizenship rights if you want. I would imagine the government would take the view it is not a good idea to have masses of citizens being subject to other rules and other citizens not - general dual citizenship is not of the same level, and Northern Ireland is sui generis - causing all sorts of administrative and legal complications, and giving the EU just cause to continually interfere.
I had seen somewhere that the EU could theoretically offer this unilaterally and the British government couldn't really do anything to stop it. Not an expert so not sure if that holds water or not.
In any case, It's unlikely to pass on the EU end because Eastern European member states will not want to see special treatment for brits considering we are expressly curbing rights for their nationals.
Yes, there is nothing stopping them offering citizenship for cash. Would require treaty change, so it is a long shot at best.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Presumably unionists are not true Scotsmen.
Ha Ha Ha , there is always an idiot waiting to prove he is one. I would presume not all unionists are Scotsmen, there must be some women , English people , probably Welsh and definitely Northern Irish.
In 2013, the proposal was to join the US in a military campaign to overthrow Assad (despite the fact that the opposition to Assad was a splintered group including Al Qaeda) and risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive. Trump's intervention is not that at all. If Trump moved to a military campaign to overthrow Assad (which he won't) Farron wouldn't support him.
"risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive."
Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived.
Deciding to do nothing is as worthy of criticism as deciding to do something.
I'll repeat my view, which admittedly is far form universally accepted on here . There was a window of opportunity even as late as the vote in 2013 to deal with acceptable anti-Assad rebel groups, for example the ex-army ones. That window soon closed, partly because Assad and Iran concentrated on those groups for the obvious reasons.
There's no *good* answer now, but I'm bemused by how many people on here think Assad should remain in power, given everything he's done to his citizens.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
Look these three apples are more than two oranges so I have more than two oranges
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Indeed. The SNP government made that point three times in their White Paper and argued SINDY as a way of avoiding Brexit - still didn't carry the vote.
CCHQ drowning so Lady Haw Haw is wheeled out for extra duty.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
Look these three apples are more than two oranges so I have more than two oranges
Don't take Philip from the Alt-Right too seriously. He does make meaningless comparisons.
... As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave ...
100% of us did not vote to leave. It was 52:48
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
Do leavers somehow fear that the purity of their Brexit will be compromised if some people retain their EU citizenship?
The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union states:
"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union."
So they would need treaty change for this idea to get off the ground.
That's not exclusive, other people could *also* be Citizens of the Union.
I big problem is that the sort of pay-as-you-go individual membership now suggested is so against EVERYTHING THE EU HAS ARGUED FOR 50 YEARS that it must be a ploy. The question is how to play it...
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
Look these three apples are more than two oranges so I have more than two oranges
Don't take Philip from the Alt-Right too seriously. He does make meaningless comparisons.
I think overusing a term like that renders it utterly meaningless.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Indeed. The SNP government made that point three times in their White Paper and argued SINDY as a way of avoiding Brexit - still didn't carry the vote.
CCHQ drowning so Lady Haw Haw is wheeled out for extra duty.
She started at about 3:30 am. So, I reckon another half hour to go.
Are we absolutely sure that it was Assad who carried it out ? My estimation: Assad 60%, JaN 30%, Others 10%. Both JaN and Others are rebels.
Remember Sarin can be manufactured in a laboratory. It looks like water and it evaporates. It does not need to be dropped from the sky.
BTW: I hold Assad responsible for the barrel bombs which actually killed far more people.
My estimation has not changed.
We cannot be sure, but we can be fairly certain he's used them before, and, as you say, has used barrel bombs. He's not averse to using chemical weapons (though sarin (if that's what it was) is a very different matter).
The Russian story is ... interesting. I treat it with the same disdain as I do their many contradictory stories over the MH17 shootdown. Basically: they're lying. They've lost all trust we should have in them when it comes to such events.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
Look these three apples are more than two oranges so I have more than two oranges
Don't take Philip from the Alt-Right too seriously. He does make meaningless comparisons.
I think overusing a term like that renders it utterly meaningless.
The last thing I will take is advice from you lot.
I think to say that he is "doing very well indeed" is possibly overstating the case a bit. I've certainly been won over by the Liberal Democrats (from the Conservatives) in terms of message, ideals etc but I haven't been too impressed by Tim Farron yet. Obviously he's not a barrier to the party getting my support, donations and votes and I have no interest at all in seeing him replaced either... but he does need to up his game a bit to reach the next level of potential new supporters beyond the ones such as myself that are being reached at the moment.
For all the good that I think our presence in the Coalition did (and I think for all the airbrushing of the Coalition years by some on here, I think 2010-15 will be looked on positively)
I agree, but my general impression, as an outsider, is that the people most keen on airbrushing the Coalition years are the LDs, and in particular the new members. They certainly will never, in this generation, should the opportunity arise (which is improbable) ever agree to coalition with the Tories no matter how hypothetically better a deal they might get. Possibly not even Labour given how poorly the coalition years went, but only them if an opportunity came up.
So really its important to see how strong they intend to be as their own distinct identity, and how much just Labour lite. I'd prefer the former as much as possible.
I agree with this though there is some overlap with Labour.
Labour is two tribes - one is open, educated, well-off, international; the other is closed, parochial, poor, uneducated and attracted to UKIP. LibDems are open and international.
Labour is politically correct (think Harriet Harman); LibDems are for personal freedom and are more similar in that respect to UKIP.
I hope the LibDEms never go into coalition again but, if necessary, provide a confidence and supply arrangement, with no Ministers but the ability to pick and chose what legislation it supports.
... As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave ...
100% of us did not vote to leave. It was 52:48
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
Do leavers somehow fear that the purity of their Brexit will be compromised if some people retain their EU citizenship?
The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union states:
"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union."
So they would need treaty change for this idea to get off the ground.
That's not exclusive, other people could *also* be Citizens of the Union.
I big problem is that the sort of pay-as-you-go individual membership now suggested is so against EVERYTHING THE EU HAS ARGUED FOR 50 YEARS that it must be a ploy. The question is how to play it...
Hm... but it doesn't explicitly state them, or do you think you could interpret that clause as "every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the EU, and all other people can be citizens of the EU"?
There's no *good* answer now, but I'm bemused by how many people on here think Assad should remain in power, given everything he's done to his citizens.
So what's your least-bad answer? Assuming we don't think that Assad should remain in power, what specifically are you advocating the US should do to remove him, and what are you advocating they should do once he's gone?
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
Look these three apples are more than two oranges so I have more than two oranges
Don't take Philip from the Alt-Right too seriously. He does make meaningless comparisons.
I think overusing a term like that renders it utterly meaningless.
He will go nowhere, have you ever listened to him , incoherent ranting halfwit.
Malc.. do you rate any politician outside of the SNP?
I like Ken Clarke
Did no one tell that he is a Tory?
Ken is absolutely OK. So is Anna Soubry and , of course, in another country, the great Angela Merkel. I recall last year, the Alt-Right on here were saying she will pay an electoral price for letting in 1m refugees - the greatest humanitarian gesture probably ever.
If the SNP so dearly want an independence referendum by 2019, they should put their jobs on the line and try to get a proper mandate by calling a Scottish general election right now.
May, should grant the referendum. SNP are a one trick pony, who have proved, less than adequate at the actual day to day running of a country
Whether we'd win or lose, it is genuinely the case it is not a great idea to hold one, on the basis of the Brexit vote, when it is unclear what sort of situation Scots in the UK will be existing in come May 2019. It doesn't matter to the die hard independence supporters, but there are people for whom a less than ideal situation (that is, Brexit) is mitigated sufficiently by a deal such that they would not wish to go Indy. Of course, there are also people for whom the deal is such they would feel going Indy is now the best option. Waiting does make sense.
But there is no downside for the SNP in calling for one sooner - they would be fairly confident of winning an early one, and agitating for it even if they don't get it doesn't seem to be harming their image any.
It will not be sooner , it will be called at the optimum time. Once they have shown the crap deal the buffoons have brokered and before we are out.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
Look these three apples are more than two oranges so I have more than two oranges
Don't take Philip from the Alt-Right too seriously. He does make meaningless comparisons.
I think overusing a term like that renders it utterly meaningless.
The last thing I will take is advice from you lot.
You are including me in the alt-right group? Do you have any justification for that (other than being a PB Tory)?
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
Look these three apples are more than two oranges so I have more than two oranges
Don't take Philip from the Alt-Right too seriously. He does make meaningless comparisons.
I think overusing a term like that renders it utterly meaningless.
There's no *good* answer now, but I'm bemused by how many people on here think Assad should remain in power, given everything he's done to his citizens.
So what's your least-bad answer? Assuming we don't think that Assad should remain in power, what specifically are you advocating the US should do to remove him, and what are you advocating they should do once he's gone?
They had great success in Libya with the same strategy. A thousand boats left Libya after that.
In 2013, the proposal was to join the US in a military campaign to overthrow Assad (despite the fact that the opposition to Assad was a splintered group including Al Qaeda) and risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive. Trump's intervention is not that at all. If Trump moved to a military campaign to overthrow Assad (which he won't) Farron wouldn't support him.
"risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive."
Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived.
Deciding to do nothing is as worthy of criticism as deciding to do something.
I'll repeat my view, which admittedly is far form universally accepted on here . There was a window of opportunity even as late as the vote in 2013 to deal with acceptable anti-Assad rebel groups, for example the ex-army ones. That window soon closed, partly because Assad and Iran concentrated on those groups for the obvious reasons.
There's no *good* answer now, but I'm bemused by how many people on here think Assad should remain in power, given everything he's done to his citizens.
Labours socialist guiding light of principles are what drove the party for so long until the 1970's, since then they have been a millstone around the necks of the party as they are based in late nineteenth/early twentieth century thinking. The only way the party moves forward is if it dumps them and starts afresh, but then it would have no identity at all as the more progressive wing has either left or been cowed by Corbyn's supporters. It cannot go forward, or back.
Unless someone truly spectacular comes along to lead Labour are fucked in the next decade almost completely, and something new may be created out of their ashes much like the Liberals and Labour all those years ago.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I wouldn't go that far with Tim. He certainly has quite a spring in his step, and the emphasis on pavement politics is paying dividends, but he does have a tendency to formulate kneejerk policy on the hoof. His response to Trumps missile attack was lacking in clarity. What has changed since he last abstained on bombing the Middle East, or the Kennedy anti-war period?
His reaction to Brexit was similar, he seemed to announce that the party would campaign to rejoin before any real reflection or consideration within the party. We are an internationalist party, but also a democratic one. Pro EU is fine, but rejoining can only be a long term vision. We need to convince the British people first, and focus on the positives of membership not the negatives of Brexit. "I told you so" will only change a few minds.
What has changed since Kennedy was the immediate usage of chemical weapons. Had Saddam used chemical weapons in 2002/3 then even Kennedy might have backed the war.
In 2013 Farron abstained on bombing Assad, despite Assad having used nerve gas on civilians and IS not yet being the major opposition. What has changed beside his mind?
Bear in mind that even May was poo pooing military action just a few days ago. We truly are Trumps poodle.
In 2013, the proposal was to join the US in a military campaign to overthrow Assad (despite the fact that the opposition to Assad was a splintered group including Al Qaeda) and risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive. Trump's intervention is not that at all. If Trump moved to a military campaign to overthrow Assad (which he won't) Farron wouldn't support him.
Splitting hairs. In 2013 there was an explicit policy of no ground troops. Assad was also much weaker, and more vulnerable to being deposed. Now he is resurgent, and heavily backed by the Russians, who do have troops on the ground. We have real risk of a shooting war with the Russians over Syria and it is simply not in our interest to do so.
Assad is a murderous despot, but a risk only to his own people. IS, Al Nusra and the others are murderous despots who are risks to the rest of us.
I think to say that he is "doing very well indeed" is possibly overstating the case a bit. I've certainly been won over by the Liberal Democrats (from the Conservatives) in terms of message, ideals etc but I haven't been too impressed by Tim Farron yet. Obviously he's not a barrier to the party getting my support, donations and votes and I have no interest at all in seeing him replaced either... but he does need to up his game a bit to reach the next level of potential new supporters beyond the ones such as myself that are being reached at the moment.
For all the good that I think our presence in the Coalition did (and I think for all the airbrushing of the Coalition years by some on here, I think 2010-15 will be looked on positively)
I agree, but my general impression, as an outsider, is that the people most keen on airbrushing the Coalition years are the LDs, and in particular the new members. They certainly will never, in this generation, should the opportunity arise (which is improbable) ever agree to coalition with the Tories no matter how hypothetically better a deal they might get. Possibly not even Labour given how poorly the coalition years went, but only them if an opportunity came up.
So really its important to see how strong they intend to be as their own distinct identity, and how much just Labour lite. I'd prefer the former as much as possible.
I agree with this though there is some overlap with Labour.
Labour is two tribes - one is open, educated, well-off, international; the other is closed, parochial, poor, uneducated and attracted to UKIP. LibDems are open and international.
Labour is politically correct (think Harriet Harman); LibDems are for personal freedom and are more similar in that respect to UKIP.
I hope the LibDEms never go into coalition again but, if necessary, provide a confidence and supply arrangement, with no Ministers but the ability to pick and chose what legislation it supports.
I particularly like your last statement. Ironically, a party providing C&S is actually more powerful. They could just have said No to Tuition fee increase.
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I wouldn't go that far with Tim. He certainly has quite a spring in his step, and the emphasis on pavement politics is paying dividends, but he does have a tendency to formulate kneejerk policy on the hoof. His response to Trumps missile attack was lacking in clarity. What has changed since he last abstained on bombing the Middle East, or the Kennedy anti-war period?
His reaction to Brexit was similar, he seemed to announce that the party would campaign to rejoin before any real reflection or consideration within the party. We are an internationalist party, but also a democratic one. Pro EU is fine, but rejoining can only be a long term vision. We need to convince the British people first, and focus on the positives of membership not the negatives of Brexit. "I told you so" will only change a few minds.
What has changed since Kennedy was the immediate usage of chemical weapons. Had Saddam used chemical weapons in 2002/3 then even Kennedy might have backed the war.
In 2013 Farron abstained on bombing Assad, despite Assad having used nerve gas on civilians and IS not yet being the major opposition. What has changed beside his mind?
Bear in mind that even May was poo pooing military action just a few days ago. We truly are Trumps poodle.
In 2013, the proposal was to join the US in a military campaign to overthrow Assad (despite the fact that the opposition to Assad was a splintered group including Al Qaeda) and risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive. Trump's intervention is not that at all. If Trump moved to a military campaign to overthrow Assad (which he won't) Farron wouldn't support him.
Splitting hairs. In 2013 there was an explicit policy of no ground troops. Assad was also much weaker, and more vulnerable to being deposed. Now he is resurgent, and heavily backed by the Russians, who do have troops on the ground. We have real risk of a shooting war with the Russians over Syria and it is simply not in our interest to do so.
Assad is a murderous despot, but a risk only to his own people. IS, Al Nusra and the others are murderous despots who are risks to the rest of us.
Are we absolutely sure that it was Assad who carried it out ? My estimation: Assad 60%, JaN 30%, Others 10%. Both JaN and Others are rebels.
Remember Sarin can be manufactured in a laboratory. It looks like water and it evaporates. It does not need to be dropped from the sky.
BTW: I hold Assad responsible for the barrel bombs which actually killed far more people.
My estimation has not changed.
We cannot be sure, but we can be fairly certain he's used them before, and, as you say, has used barrel bombs. He's not averse to using chemical weapons (though sarin (if that's what it was) is a very different matter).
The Russian story is ... interesting. I treat it with the same disdain as I do their many contradictory stories over the MH17 shootdown. Basically: they're lying. They've lost all trust we should have in them when it comes to such events.
Bit like saddam then, a good scape goat. The old "sh++ one sheep" line. I trust the Russians about as much as I trust our lying cheating toerags. Two cheeks of the same ar*e and would not be surprising if both were in collusion on it.
Ukip no longer have a purpose. The LDs do - they survive to howl at the moon as they attempt to subvert democracy.
So sad. A once great party reduced to this as their raison d'etre.
Oh, and greetings from sunny Sydney.
It is perfectly democratic to try to garner support for a change in Britains policy towards our European neighbours.
I am to what to do next.
Credit where it is due, Nuttall has condemned the bombing, alongside Jezza and the Green Party.
With filling it.
But weirdly they're not. Stubbornly stuck on 10%. The coalition casts a long shadow and Labour still present by far the most likely alternative
Labour is killing itself.
The LDs are very, very far from providing a left wing alternative. More Plaid Cymru than SNP. The quickest route to alternative is still to fix Labour.
Sadly, I fear that horse has bolted. The Livingstone whitewash, followed by Corbyn's Stop the War Lite reaction to the Syrian bombing and McCluskey's re-election have confirmed that it is all over for Labour.
The Tories have power for the next 10 years. Being Tories they will move ever rightwards. That will open the way for a new centrist party, that is likely to be called the Liberal Democrats, to challenge for power in 2025.
I'd agree with that, and could perhaps be persuaded to vote LD in the future, but not while they want to dive straight back into the full throttle EU. That would be a big stumbling block for a lot of people like me, I guess.
There is a good LD slate in the Leics county elections:
I would agree that re-entry as policy at the next election would bre a mistake, but a policy of joining the EEA is really quite sensible.
Apart from anything else, I don't think that the EU would let us rejoinn for at least another generation.
I agree. Once we are out, we are out. EEA membership is something I would back and it's why I was not that bothered about losing the referendum as, foolishly, I believed that is where sensible Tories would take us to.
The chance of EEA was blown by the attempts to overturn the result.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
Look these three apples are more than two oranges so I have more than two oranges
Don't take Philip from the Alt-Right too seriously. He does make meaningless comparisons.
I think overusing a term like that renders it utterly meaningless.
The last thing I will take is advice from you lot.
You are including me in the alt-right group? Do you have any justification for that (other than being a PB Tory)?
Are we absolutely sure that it was Assad who carried it out ? My estimation: Assad 60%, JaN 30%, Others 10%. Both JaN and Others are rebels.
Remember Sarin can be manufactured in a laboratory. It looks like water and it evaporates. It does not need to be dropped from the sky.
BTW: I hold Assad responsible for the barrel bombs which actually killed far more people.
My estimation has not changed.
We cannot be sure, but we can be fairly certain he's used them before, and, as you say, has used barrel bombs. He's not averse to using chemical weapons (though sarin (if that's what it was) is a very different matter).
The Russian story is ... interesting. I treat it with the same disdain as I do their many contradictory stories over the MH17 shootdown. Basically: they're lying. They've lost all trust we should have in them when it comes to such events.
Do you think there is/are rebel group/s in whose interest it is to draw the Americans in ?
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
The fact that such a thing even exists should bring into focus the fact that the EU was - and is - a political project aimed at creating a new country called Europe.
Ukip no longer have a purpose. The LDs do - they survive to howl at the moon as they attempt to subvert democracy.
So sad. A once great party reduced to this as their raison d'etre.
Oh, and greetings from sunny Sydney.
It is perfectly democratic to try to garner support for a change in Britains policy towards our European neighbours.
I am to what to do next.
Credit where it is due, Nuttall has condemned the bombing, alongside Jezza and the Green Party.
With filling it.
But weirdly they're not. Stubbornly stuck on 10%. The coalition casts a long shadow and Labour still present by far the most likely alternative
Labour is killing itself.
The LDs are very, very far from providing a left wing alternative. More Plaid Cymru than SNP. The quickest route to alternative is still to fix Labour.
Sadly, I fear that horse has bolted. The Livingstone whitewash, followed by Corbyn's Stop the War Lite reaction to the Syrian bombing and McCluskey's re-election have confirmed that it is all over for Labour.
The Tories have power for the next 10 years. Being Tories they will move ever rightwards. That will open the way for a new centrist party, that is likely to be called the Liberal Democrats, to challenge for power in 2025.
I'd agree with that, and could perhaps be persuaded to vote LD in the future, but not while they want to dive straight back into the full throttle EU. That would be a big stumbling block for a lot of people like me, I guess.
There is a good LD slate in the Leics county elections:
I would agree that re-entry as policy at the next election would bre a mistake, but a policy of joining the EEA is really quite sensible.
Apart from anything else, I don't think that the EU would let us rejoinn for at least another generation.
I agree. Once we are out, we are out. EEA membership is something I would back and it's why I was not that bothered about losing the referendum as, foolishly, I believed that is where sensible Tories would take us to.
The chance of EEA was blown by the attempts to overturn the result.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
Look these three apples are more than two oranges so I have more than two oranges
Don't take Philip from the Alt-Right too seriously. He does make meaningless comparisons.
I think overusing a term like that renders it utterly meaningless.
The last thing I will take is advice from you lot.
You are including me in the alt-right group? Do you have any justification for that (other than being a PB Tory)?
Rob , You are a bad un and you know it
You'll never forgive me for eating your last turnip, will you?
He will go nowhere, have you ever listened to him , incoherent ranting halfwit.
Malc.. do you rate any politician outside of the SNP?
I like Ken Clarke
Did no one tell that he is a Tory?
Ken is a gentleman, Tories missed a big opportunity not making him leader. When you think of hte nonentities they chose instead of him it is unbelievable.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
They may not have done, but that doesn't change the fact that a consequence of leaving the EU is losing the EU citizenship. Only a fool would think it would continue after a country had left.
On your second point, you sincerely overestimate my abilities if you think I am holding them back!
If votes are that important, they did not vote to leave the EU. THey overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU.
Scottish votes:
Remain in the EU 1,661,191 Remain in the UK 2,001,926
UK got more votes.
Look these three apples are more than two oranges so I have more than two oranges
Don't take Philip from the Alt-Right too seriously. He does make meaningless comparisons.
I think overusing a term like that renders it utterly meaningless.
The last thing I will take is advice from you lot.
You are including me in the alt-right group? Do you have any justification for that (other than being a PB Tory)?
Rob , You are a bad un and you know it
You'll never forgive me for eating your last turnip, will you?
There's no *good* answer now, but I'm bemused by how many people on here think Assad should remain in power, given everything he's done to his citizens.
So what's your least-bad answer? Assuming we don't think that Assad should remain in power, what specifically are you advocating the US should do to remove him, and what are you advocating they should do once he's gone?
It's far more difficult now, but my answer's more or less the same as it was in 2013. Assad isn't alone, and there are still senior figures on his side. Encourage Assad to go into retirement (I hear the Black Sea coast is nice), and let one of his underlings take over the reins of power. This might even be someone acceptable to Iran and Russia.
Now, the underlings may be complicit in war crimes as well. But it's clear that Assad is a massive stumbling block to peace. After that, grant the Kurds a homeland in Syria if they wish (even if that'll be massively unpopular with Turkey and Iran). The Kurdsh autonomous region in Iraq might be a model to follow.
It might be the same thing has to happen with the rest of the country: move it away from the dead-hand of a dictator to a more federal structure. This may cause massive population movements; then again, half the population's already moved (citation required).
It's not an easy answer, and in some ways is immoral. But there are no good answers.
What's your least-bad answer whilst keeping Assad in charge?
Are we absolutely sure that it was Assad who carried it out ? My estimation: Assad 60%, JaN 30%, Others 10%. Both JaN and Others are rebels.
Remember Sarin can be manufactured in a laboratory. It looks like water and it evaporates. It does not need to be dropped from the sky.
BTW: I hold Assad responsible for the barrel bombs which actually killed far more people.
My estimation has not changed.
We cannot be sure, but we can be fairly certain he's used them before, and, as you say, has used barrel bombs. He's not averse to using chemical weapons (though sarin (if that's what it was) is a very different matter).
The Russian story is ... interesting. I treat it with the same disdain as I do their many contradictory stories over the MH17 shootdown. Basically: they're lying. They've lost all trust we should have in them when it comes to such events.
Do you think there is/are rebel group/s in whose interest it is to draw the Americans in ?
I think there are, but also there is the obvious question of why would Assad order this now? His forces have reconquered Alleppo, and Idlib is now the major rebel (excl IS) province. The noose is tightening. What could Assad gain and what could he lose by ordering this?
I do think that a rogue Pro-Assad unit is plausible though.
In 2013, the proposal was to join the US in a military campaign to overthrow Assad (despite the fact that the opposition to Assad was a splintered group including Al Qaeda) and risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive. Trump's intervention is not that at all. If Trump moved to a military campaign to overthrow Assad (which he won't) Farron wouldn't support him.
"risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive."
Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived.
Deciding to do nothing is as worthy of criticism as deciding to do something.
I'll repeat my view, which admittedly is far form universally accepted on here . There was a window of opportunity even as late as the vote in 2013 to deal with acceptable anti-Assad rebel groups, for example the ex-army ones. That window soon closed, partly because Assad and Iran concentrated on those groups for the obvious reasons.
There's no *good* answer now, but I'm bemused by how many people on here think Assad should remain in power, given everything he's done to his citizens.
There is no good answer. Assad is evil - no doubt about it, but the lesser of two evils, - the other being a failed state in which ISIS thrives. I'm hopeful that a way can be found, brokered by the Russians, in which the Syrian people decide who their leader is. It is their call, not ours.
"Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived."
We didn't do nothing. The CIA undermined Assad for years and encouraged the rebels because Assad was leaning East (Iran Shai) rather than West (Saudi Sunni). We (the CIA) initiated the chaos and vacuum. Clinton would have continued the CIA policy. I think Trump is more of a pragmatist.
Read Robert Kennedy Jr's account of the CIA and Syria.
... As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave ...
100% of us did not vote to leave. It was 52:48
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
Do leavers somehow fear that the purity of their Brexit will be compromised if some people retain their EU citizenship?
The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union states:
"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union."
So they would need treaty change for this idea to get off the ground.
That's not exclusive, other people could *also* be Citizens of the Union.
I big problem is that the sort of pay-as-you-go individual membership now suggested is so against EVERYTHING THE EU HAS ARGUED FOR 50 YEARS that it must be a ploy. The question is how to play it...
I'm sure they'd be doing it just to sow chaos in the British ranks as it's quite hard to construct an argument against it that's not founded on spite.
Are we absolutely sure that it was Assad who carried it out ? My estimation: Assad 60%, JaN 30%, Others 10%. Both JaN and Others are rebels.
Remember Sarin can be manufactured in a laboratory. It looks like water and it evaporates. It does not need to be dropped from the sky.
BTW: I hold Assad responsible for the barrel bombs which actually killed far more people.
My estimation has not changed.
We cannot be sure, but we can be fairly certain he's used them before, and, as you say, has used barrel bombs. He's not averse to using chemical weapons (though sarin (if that's what it was) is a very different matter).
The Russian story is ... interesting. I treat it with the same disdain as I do their many contradictory stories over the MH17 shootdown. Basically: they're lying. They've lost all trust we should have in them when it comes to such events.
Do you think there is/are rebel group/s in whose interest it is to draw the Americans in ?
So what's the play here, Syrian air craft launch a strike and after the strike the rebel group gasses its own village?. And then Russian aircraft bomb the hospital treating the victims.
Or Syrian aircraft bomb a rebel held poison gas factory and instead of it going up in a ball of fire given all the volatile compounds invloved it spreads out just like a poison gas bombing. And then the Russians bomb the hospital treating the victims?
Two extremely right-wing Tories agree with one another. Wonders will never end!
Tim Farron is doing very well indeed for the Lib Dems, thank you very much. It`s just posters operating on behalf of the Tory black ops propaganda machine that do not like him.
I take offence at that. I haven't voted Tory since 2010.
If you've voted Tory once, you are tainted forever I'm afraid.
If any one of your family has even voted Tory you get flagged on the system.
I think they only go back as far as your grandparents on the light-vetting though.
... As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave ...
100% of us did not vote to leave. It was 52:48
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
Do leavers somehow fear that the purity of their Brexit will be compromised if some people retain their EU citizenship?
The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union states:
"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union."
So they would need treaty change for this idea to get off the ground.
That's not exclusive, other people could *also* be Citizens of the Union.
I big problem is that the sort of pay-as-you-go individual membership now suggested is so against EVERYTHING THE EU HAS ARGUED FOR 50 YEARS that it must be a ploy. The question is how to play it...
Hm... but it doesn't explicitly state them, or do you think you could interpret that clause as "every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the EU, and all other people can be citizens of the EU"?
Extending citizenship to third party nationals would be a major step, or course - no doubting that. That's not because it fundamentally undermines A20, which leaves that path open; but because it undermines other Treaty rights. British citizens would be free to retire to the Costa Del Sol without Spanish citizens being able to live in Brighton, which means not all citizens of the EU would enjoy the same rights.
Are we absolutely sure that it was Assad who carried it out ? My estimation: Assad 60%, JaN 30%, Others 10%. Both JaN and Others are rebels.
Remember Sarin can be manufactured in a laboratory. It looks like water and it evaporates. It does not need to be dropped from the sky.
BTW: I hold Assad responsible for the barrel bombs which actually killed far more people.
My estimation has not changed.
We cannot be sure, but we can be fairly certain he's used them before, and, as you say, has used barrel bombs. He's not averse to using chemical weapons (though sarin (if that's what it was) is a very different matter).
The Russian story is ... interesting. I treat it with the same disdain as I do their many contradictory stories over the MH17 shootdown. Basically: they're lying. They've lost all trust we should have in them when it comes to such events.
Do you think there is/are rebel group/s in whose interest it is to draw the Americans in ?
Yes. But that does not mean they've done so.
The war is a civil war, and like all such wars it's a tremendous mess. There are even cases where different groups were fighting together against a common enemy on one front, whilst fighting each other elsewhere.
Are we absolutely sure that it was Assad who carried it out ? My estimation: Assad 60%, JaN 30%, Others 10%. Both JaN and Others are rebels.
Remember Sarin can be manufactured in a laboratory. It looks like water and it evaporates. It does not need to be dropped from the sky.
BTW: I hold Assad responsible for the barrel bombs which actually killed far more people.
My estimation has not changed.
We cannot be sure, but we can be fairly certain he's used them before, and, as you say, has used barrel bombs. He's not averse to using chemical weapons (though sarin (if that's what it was) is a very different matter).
The Russian story is ... interesting. I treat it with the same disdain as I do their many contradictory stories over the MH17 shootdown. Basically: they're lying. They've lost all trust we should have in them when it comes to such events.
Do you think there is/are rebel group/s in whose interest it is to draw the Americans in ?
So what's the play here, Syrian air craft launch a strike and after the strike the rebel group gasses its own village?. And then Russian aircraft bomb the hospital treating the victims.
Or Syrian aircraft bomb a rebel held poison gas factory and instead of it going up in a ball of fire given all the volatile compounds invloved it spreads out just like a poison gas bombing. And then the Russians bomb the hospital treating the victims?
Alistair , who woul;d know the truth or make sense of it, all sides bomb cibvilians , hospitals etc, the US are experts at it with their "precision" bombing , drones etc. The key point was stated above , the US started the civil war by funding nutjobs , as they have done elsewhere. Now we have all teh big players in there trying to get their chosen murderers in charge. Look at all previous examples, they are shambles compared to what tehy were before the west tried to change regimes. Time for US and UK to butt out of the middle east and let them settle their issues themselves rather than backing Saudi version all the time. We should not be involved toppling elected governments.
... As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave ...
100% of us did not vote to leave. It was 52:48
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
Do leavers somehow fear that the purity of their Brexit will be compromised if some people retain their EU citizenship?
The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union states:
"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union."
So they would need treaty change for this idea to get off the ground.
That's not exclusive, other people could *also* be Citizens of the Union.
I big problem is that the sort of pay-as-you-go individual membership now suggested is so against EVERYTHING THE EU HAS ARGUED FOR 50 YEARS that it must be a ploy. The question is how to play it...
I'm sure they'd be doing it just to sow chaos in the British ranks as it's quite hard to construct an argument against it that's not founded on spite.
I think that it is a recognition that there are plenty of young, well educated Britons who are keen to remain European. Encouraging them to work and migrate to parts of the EU27 significantly aids Europes demographics.
Your mistake is to view the proposal through the UK's anti-immigrant prism. The rest of the EU sees migration in a more positive light. The similarity of tariff barriers is there, no country gains by them.
Why is this "Doctor" from East London calling his government "your government?"
"British-trained doctor has shared horrifying "evidence" that hundreds of innocent Syrians were gassed in an air attack today. At least 58 people - including 11 children - are said to have died following the suspected gas attack in rebel-held Idlib province. Hundreds of others have been left injured, with some victims reportedly seen choking, fainting and with foam around their mouths. Dr Shajul Islam, who trained in the UK and now works in northern Syria , says seriously ill patients are still "flooding" into hospital. In his YouTube video following the attack, Dr Islam said "We urge you to put pressure on your government - put pressure on anyone - to help us." "
"In some reports of the alleged atrocity, a supposed ‘British doctor’, Shajul Islam, was quoted or shown on the spot, described as a ‘volunteer treating victims in hospital’. Actually, he shouldn’t really be called a British doctor.He was struck off the British medical register for ‘misconduct’ in March 2016. The General Medical Council won’t say why. And in 2012 Shajul Islam was charged with terror offences in a British court. He was accused of imprisoning John Cantlie, a British photographer, and a Dutchman, Jeroen Oerlemans.Both men were held by a militant group in Syria and both were wounded when they tried to escape. Shajul Islam, it was alleged, was among their captors. Shajul Islam’s trial collapsed in 2013, when it was revealed that Mr Cantlie had been abducted once again, and could not give evidence.Mr Oerlemans refused to give evidence for fear that it would further endanger Mr Cantlie. Mr Oerlemans has since been killed in Libya. So the supposedly benevolent medical man at the scene of the alleged atrocity turns out to be a struck-off doctor who was once put on trial for kidnapping."
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Fallon is on full frontal assault on Russia.
Hopefully not literally, or we can all kiss our asses goodbye!
Chemical weapons are appalling, but there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy from our government that sees killing civilians in Syria as a war crime, but bombing starving civilians in Yemen as a sales opportunity.
Absolutely right. All the more so given our silence and complicity when the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against the Iranians. Now I know some might claim that is history but our actions then completely destroy our credibility now when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. We seem to have a clear double standard that when the people being poisoned are our perceived enemies it is justifiable and when they are our allies or neutral it is a terrible crime.
In 2013, the proposal was to join the US in a military campaign to overthrow Assad (despite the fact that the opposition to Assad was a splintered group including Al Qaeda) and risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive. Trump's intervention is not that at all. If Trump moved to a military campaign to overthrow Assad (which he won't) Farron wouldn't support him.
"risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive."
Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived.
Deciding to do nothing is as worthy of criticism as deciding to do something.
I'll repeat my view, which admittedly is far form universally accepted on here . There was a window of opportunity even as late as the vote in 2013 to deal with acceptable anti-Assad rebel groups, for example the ex-army ones. That window soon closed, partly because Assad and Iran concentrated on those groups for the obvious reasons.
There's no *good* answer now, but I'm bemused by how many people on here think Assad should remain in power, given everything he's done to his citizens.
There is no good answer. Assad is evil - no doubt about it, but the lesser of two evils, - the other being a failed state in which ISIS thrives. I'm hopeful that a way can be found, brokered by the Russians, in which the Syrian people decide who their leader is. It is their call, not ours.
"Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived."
We didn't do nothing. The CIA undermined Assad for years and encouraged the rebels because Assad was leaning East (Iran Shai) rather than West (Saudi Sunni). We (the CIA) initiated the chaos and vacuum. Clinton would have continued the CIA policy. I think Trump is more of a pragmatist.
Read Robert Kennedy Jr's account of the CIA and Syria.
... As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave ...
100% of us did not vote to leave. It was 52:48
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
Do leavers somehow fear that the purity of their Brexit will be compromised if some people retain their EU citizenship?
The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union states:
"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union."
So they would need treaty change for this idea to get off the ground.
That's not exclusive, other people could *also* be Citizens of the Union.
I big problem is that the sort of pay-as-you-go individual membership now suggested is so against EVERYTHING THE EU HAS ARGUED FOR 50 YEARS that it must be a ploy. The question is how to play it...
Hm... but it doesn't explicitly state them, or do you think you could interpret that clause as "every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the EU, and all other people can be citizens of the EU"?
Extending citizenship to third party nationals would be a major step, or course - no doubting that. That's not because it fundamentally undermines A20, which leaves that path open; but because it undermines other Treaty rights. British citizens would be free to retire to the Costa Del Sol without Spanish citizens being able to live in Brighton, which means not all citizens of the EU would enjoy the same rights.
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
Time for US and UK to butt out of the middle east and let them settle their issues themselves rather than backing Saudi version all the time. We should not be involved toppling elected governments.
Until the Scottish auto industry perfects low cost and reliable porridge powered cars butting out isn't an option.
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Fallon is on full frontal assault on Russia.
Hopefully not literally, or we can all kiss our asses goodbye!
Chemical weapons are appalling, but there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy from our government that sees killing civilians in Syria as a war crime, but bombing starving civilians in Yemen as a sales opportunity.
Absolutely right. All the more so given our silence and complicity when the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against the Iranians. Now I know some might claim that is history but our actions then completely destroy our credibility now when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. We seem to have a clear double standard that when the people being poisoned are our perceived enemies it is justifiable and when they are our allies or neutral it is a terrible crime.
Which is why we should make it very clear now that it is unacceptable, and *anyone* using them will be held responsible for their actions.
Turning our backs just because we cravenly dd so before just compounds the error.
In 2013, the proposal was to join the US in a military campaign to overthrow Assad (despite the fact that the opposition to Assad was a splintered group including Al Qaeda) and risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive. Trump's intervention is not that at all. If Trump moved to a military campaign to overthrow Assad (which he won't) Farron wouldn't support him.
"risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive."
Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived.
Deciding to do nothing is as worthy of criticism as deciding to do something.
I'll repeat my view, which admittedly is far form universally accepted on here . There was a window of opportunity even as late as the vote in 2013 to deal with acceptable anti-Assad rebel groups, for example the ex-army ones. That window soon closed, partly because Assad and Iran concentrated on those groups for the obvious reasons.
There's no *good* answer now, but I'm bemused by how many people on here think Assad should remain in power, given everything he's done to his citizens.
There is no good answer. Assad is evil - no doubt about it, but the lesser of two evils, - the other being a failed state in which ISIS thrives. I'm hopeful that a way can be found, brokered by the Russians, in which the Syrian people decide who their leader is. It is their call, not ours.
"Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived."
We didn't do nothing. The CIA undermined Assad for years and encouraged the rebels because Assad was leaning East (Iran Shai) rather than West (Saudi Sunni). We (the CIA) initiated the chaos and vacuum. Clinton would have continued the CIA policy. I think Trump is more of a pragmatist.
Read Robert Kennedy Jr's account of the CIA and Syria.
Time for US and UK to butt out of the middle east and let them settle their issues themselves rather than backing Saudi version all the time. We should not be involved toppling elected governments.
Until the Scottish auto industry perfects low cost and reliable porridge powered cars butting out isn't an option.
Solve the obesity problem, people would get more exercise and anyway the arabs would soon tire of eating sand every day, they need to sell oil to live.
... As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave ...
100% of us did not vote to leave. It was 52:48
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
Do leavers somehow fear that the purity of their Brexit will be compromised if some people retain their EU citizenship?
The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union states:
"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union."
So they would need treaty change for this idea to get off the ground.
That's not exclusive, other people could *also* be Citizens of the Union.
I big problem is that the sort of pay-as-you-go individual membership now suggested is so against EVERYTHING THE EU HAS ARGUED FOR 50 YEARS that it must be a ploy. The question is how to play it...
Hm... but it doesn't explicitly state them, or do you think you could interpret that clause as "every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the EU, and all other people can be citizens of the EU"?
Extending citizenship to third party nationals would be a major step, or course - no doubting that. That's not because it fundamentally undermines A20, which leaves that path open; but because it undermines other Treaty rights. British citizens would be free to retire to the Costa Del Sol without Spanish citizens being able to live in Brighton, which means not all citizens of the EU would enjoy the same rights.
A Spanish bloke can still live in Brighton. He just might need to jump through an extra hoop of paperwork to do it.
Can Manuel then opt out of his EU citizenship and get a refund?
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Fallon is on full frontal assault on Russia.
Hopefully not literally, or we can all kiss our asses goodbye!
Chemical weapons are appalling, but there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy from our government that sees killing civilians in Syria as a war crime, but bombing starving civilians in Yemen as a sales opportunity.
Absolutely right. All the more so given our silence and complicity when the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against the Iranians. Now I know some might claim that is history but our actions then completely destroy our credibility now when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. We seem to have a clear double standard that when the people being poisoned are our perceived enemies it is justifiable and when they are our allies or neutral it is a terrible crime.
Which is why we should make it very clear now that it is unacceptable, and *anyone* using them will be held responsible for their actions.
Turning our backs just because we cravenly dd so before just compounds the error.
It has been unacceptable to use then since WWI. has it made a difference. It was UK and US who started all the manufactur eof such weapons and others followed suit. Key point is that we do not know who really used them and our own people are such pathological cheating liars that you cannot trust anything they tell us.
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
If Cameron had secured that deal, Remain would have won by a landslide...
In 2013, the proposal was to join the US in a military campaign to overthrow Assad (despite the fact that the opposition to Assad was a splintered group including Al Qaeda) and risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive. Trump's intervention is not that at all. If Trump moved to a military campaign to overthrow Assad (which he won't) Farron wouldn't support him.
"risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive."
Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived.
Deciding to do nothing is as worthy of criticism as deciding to do something.
I'll repeat my view, which admittedly is far form universally accepted on here . There was a window of opportunity even as late as the vote in 2013 to deal with acceptable anti-Assad rebel groups, for example the ex-army ones. That window soon closed, partly because Assad and Iran concentrated on those groups for the obvious reasons.
There's no *good* answer now, but I'm bemused by how many people on here think Assad should remain in power, given everything he's done to his citizens.
There is no good answer. Assad is evil - no doubt about it, but the lesser of two evils, - the other being a failed state in which ISIS thrives. I'm hopeful that a way can be found, brokered by the Russians, in which the Syrian people decide who their leader is. It is their call, not ours.
"Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived."
We didn't do nothing. The CIA undermined Assad for years and encouraged the rebels because Assad was leaning East (Iran Shai) rather than West (Saudi Sunni). We (the CIA) initiated the chaos and vacuum. Clinton would have continued the CIA policy. I think Trump is more of a pragmatist.
Read Robert Kennedy Jr's account of the CIA and Syria.
There's no *good* answer now, but I'm bemused by how many people on here think Assad should remain in power, given everything he's done to his citizens.
So what's your least-bad answer? Assuming we don't think that Assad should remain in power, what specifically are you advocating the US should do to remove him, and what are you advocating they should do once he's gone?
It's far more difficult now, but my answer's more or less the same as it was in 2013. Assad isn't alone, and there are still senior figures on his side. Encourage Assad to go into retirement (I hear the Black Sea coast is nice), and let one of his underlings take over the reins of power. This might even be someone acceptable to Iran and Russia.
Now, the underlings may be complicit in war crimes as well. But it's clear that Assad is a massive stumbling block to peace. After that, grant the Kurds a homeland in Syria if they wish (even if that'll be massively unpopular with Turkey and Iran). The Kurdsh autonomous region in Iraq might be a model to follow.
It might be the same thing has to happen with the rest of the country: move it away from the dead-hand of a dictator to a more federal structure. This may cause massive population movements; then again, half the population's already moved (citation required).
It's not an easy answer, and in some ways is immoral. But there are no good answers.
Sorry, what specifically is the "encourage" process here? What does the US do specifically that results in your preferred solution a Kurdish autonomous region in Syria and an alternative dictator? Presumably we're not talking about writing a letter to the Syria Times?
What's your least-bad answer whilst keeping Assad in charge?
It would be "leaving" not "keeping". "Keeping" implies active support. My least-bad answer is to let the Syrians work out who should govern Syria, and help the refugees.
I'd be open to a better plan if somebody has one, but the process we've seen several times now has been escalating military action, which each time fails to achieve its objectives, which is blamed on insufficient military action, resulting in escalating military action, which etc etc.
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
If Cameron had secured that deal, Remain would have won by a landslide...
It's either not what's being proposed (though it has been made to sound like it) or they have no intention of allowing it to actually come to pass.
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
What about others? Australians? Canadians? Could they buy EU citizenship off eBay too?
Not people from India obviously as keeping out non-white people is a prime directive of EU immigration policy.
If Cameron had secured that deal, Remain would have won by a landslide...
Indeed, especially if the price was low as well. It really doesn't make any sense to me, what does the EU get in return apart from a few quid from whinging "citizens of the world"?
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
If it was priced at the same as a UK one and recognized internationally it would be a very attractive option. More benefits for the same cash. The proportion of people holding them would also be like a running opinion poll.
If Cameron had secured that deal, Remain would have won by a landslide...
Indeed, especially if the price was low as well. It really doesn't make any sense to me, what does the EU get in return apart from a few quid from whinging "citizens of the world"?
There is a political benefit to Brits "buying in" to the EU... but I can't see that beign a sufficient reason.
I don't see how May could strike down a referendum bill at the same time as rejecting proposals to allow Brits to keep EU citizenship after Brexit. It would be a terrible look.
Not sure many people would link the two to be honest.
Think how it would look to Americans in New York or California. May would be seen as holding an entire nation hostage in Brexitland.
Get a grip! The nationalists are champing at the bit for a referendum, what a shocker! As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave. I am sure the vast majority of people voting knew that one of the consequences of that would be the loss of EU citizenship. I suspect a few people voted to leave for exactly that reason.
Scots didn't. They should be independent. Why are you holding them back ?
Scots voted to remain in the UK knowing full well that a Brexit referendum was scheduled.
Indeed. The SNP government made that point three times in their White Paper and argued SINDY as a way of avoiding Brexit - still didn't carry the vote.
CCHQ drowning so Lady Haw Haw is wheeled out for extra duty.
She started at about 3:30 am. So, I reckon another half hour to go.
She does get up early to repeat the current message of the day.
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Fallon is on full frontal assault on Russia.
Hopefully not literally, or we can all kiss our asses goodbye!
Chemical weapons are appalling, but there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy from our government that sees killing civilians in Syria as a war crime, but bombing starving civilians in Yemen as a sales opportunity.
Absolutely right. All the more so given our silence and complicity when the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against the Iranians. Now I know some might claim that is history but our actions then completely destroy our credibility now when it comes to the use of chemical weapons. We seem to have a clear double standard that when the people being poisoned are our perceived enemies it is justifiable and when they are our allies or neutral it is a terrible crime.
Which is why we should make it very clear now that it is unacceptable, and *anyone* using them will be held responsible for their actions.
Turning our backs just because we cravenly dd so before just compounds the error.
It has been unacceptable to use then since WWI. has it made a difference. It was UK and US who started all the manufactur eof such weapons and others followed suit. Key point is that we do not know who really used them and our own people are such pathological cheating liars that you cannot trust anything they tell us.
US and UK? Chemical warfare is first recorded in India in the fourth century BC, then in Greece and China soon afterwards.
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
If it was priced at the same as a UK one and recognized internationally it would be a very attractive option. More benefits for the same cash. The proportion of people holding them would also be like a running opinion poll.
If it is the same price or a bit more, quite literally hundreds of thousands, if not in millions, will take it.
In 2013, the proposal was to join the US in a military campaign to overthrow Assad (despite the fact that the opposition to Assad was a splintered group including Al Qaeda) and risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive. Trump's intervention is not that at all. If Trump moved to a military campaign to overthrow Assad (which he won't) Farron wouldn't support him.
"risk producing a vacuum as in Iraq and Libya in which terrorists could thrive."
Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived.
Deciding to do nothing is as worthy of criticism as deciding to do something.
I'll repeat my view, which admittedly is far form universally accepted on here . There was a window of opportunity even as late as the vote in 2013 to deal with acceptable anti-Assad rebel groups, for example the ex-army ones. That window soon closed, partly because Assad and Iran concentrated on those groups for the obvious reasons.
There's no *good* answer now, but I'm bemused by how many people on here think Assad should remain in power, given everything he's done to his citizens.
There is no good answer. Assad is evil - no doubt about it, but the lesser of two evils, - the other being a failed state in which ISIS thrives. I'm hopeful that a way can be found, brokered by the Russians, in which the Syrian people decide who their leader is. It is their call, not ours.
"Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived."
We didn't do nothing. The CIA undermined Assad for years and encouraged the rebels because Assad was leaning East (Iran Shai) rather than West (Saudi Sunni). We (the CIA) initiated the chaos and vacuum. Clinton would have continued the CIA policy. I think Trump is more of a pragmatist.
Read Robert Kennedy Jr's account of the CIA and Syria.
I fundamentally and strongly disagree with the idea that, when faced with two evils, we have to back one. Better to fight both evils.
On another point: the person who initiated the chaos was not in America, or Saudi. It was Assad. He shoulders the blame.
Did you read the Robert Kennedy account?
I've read it before, , and I believe I've commented about it on here at length. It doesn't change a thing: Assad was doing vile things to some of his people, as dictators tend to do. That's at the core of this. The fact he's continued in the same manner just cements the fact.
If Cameron had secured that deal, Remain would have won by a landslide...
Indeed, especially if the price was low as well. It really doesn't make any sense to me, what does the EU get in return apart from a few quid from whinging "citizens of the world"?
There is a political benefit to Brits "buying in" to the EU... but I can't see that beign a sufficient reason.
I think it's a good idea. UK citizens can buy EU rights, and EU citizens get sweet FA in return. That's the kind of EU I'd like to see.
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
It is an odd proposal. UK citizens could buy EU rights that would benefit them in EU countries, but EU citizens would gain nothing in return for when they are in the UK. It also makes a mockery of EU membership if it really comes down to being willing to pay.
If it was priced at the same as a UK one and recognized internationally it would be a very attractive option. More benefits for the same cash. The proportion of people holding them would also be like a running opinion poll.
Not sure it would be a running opinion poll although I see where you came from with that idea.
I travel around the EU a lot on business and if it got me through Customs easier and was priced reasonably my company would probably buy it for me. Like a souped-up EasyJet Speedy Boarding.
... As for EU citizenship, people voted to leave ...
100% of us did not vote to leave. It was 52:48
That means that there might very well be a large number of people who are interested in retaining their EU citizenship rights.
Do leavers somehow fear that the purity of their Brexit will be compromised if some people retain their EU citizenship?
The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union states:
"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union."
So they would need treaty change for this idea to get off the ground.
That's not exclusive, other people could *also* be Citizens of the Union.
I big problem is that the sort of pay-as-you-go individual membership now suggested is so against EVERYTHING THE EU HAS ARGUED FOR 50 YEARS that it must be a ploy. The question is how to play it...
Hm... but it doesn't explicitly state them, or do you think you could interpret that clause as "every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the EU, and all other people can be citizens of the EU"?
Extending citizenship to third party nationals would be a major step, or course - no doubting that. That's not because it fundamentally undermines A20, which leaves that path open; but because it undermines other Treaty rights. British citizens would be free to retire to the Costa Del Sol without Spanish citizens being able to live in Brighton, which means not all citizens of the EU would enjoy the same rights.
Hah, a very good point. It would mean that UK citizens get to enjoy freedom of movement of people and labour without the UK having to accept a single EU citizen in return. What's not to love?
But they would have to pay for it, just like an EU citizen paying for his work permit.
If it was priced at the same as a UK one and recognized internationally it would be a very attractive option. More benefits for the same cash. The proportion of people holding them would also be like a running opinion poll.
It's not just rights for cash, it's that there's nothing reciprocal about the proposal.
Given that the EU is currently saying you can't be in the single market without the four freedoms it does seem odd that they are floating the idea of being able to buy EU citizenship for NOTHING in return other than some cash. What about all those important principles? Does money now trump all that?
They really should have offered that to us last year, we would have bitten their hand off for such a deal.
An argument as to why Melenchon will not only be President, but also win the first round:
1. He is the only candidate with real sustained momentum in the polls.
2. At least a third of the voters are reported to be undecided. Turnout is usually very high, over 80% in 2012. Most expect turnout to be down this time around, but even if it fell to 75% then there are at least 20% who will vote who have not yet made up their minds.
3. The Presidential race puts more emphasis on personality than policies, unlike a GE.
4. Melenchon is seen as the most popular politician and the least unpopular politician in France at the moment.
5. If he makes it to the second round, he has proved beyond doubt that he is a star performer in TV debates. Not only that, his performance does shift voting intentions, as we have seen.
I don't expect any polls showing him to be in the top two, as most of the undecided are likely to remain undecided until the day itself or at least a day or two before the vote in just two weeks time.
I will probably end up with egg on my face and he will come trailing in 4th place, but FWIW, I think the reasons above show that there could be a major shock on the cards.
Why is this "Doctor" from East London calling his government "your government?"
"British-trained doctor has shared horrifying "evidence" that hundreds of innocent Syrians were gassed in an air attack today. At least 58 people - including 11 children - are said to have died following the suspected gas attack in rebel-held Idlib province. Hundreds of others have been left injured, with some victims reportedly seen choking, fainting and with foam around their mouths. Dr Shajul Islam, who trained in the UK and now works in northern Syria , says seriously ill patients are still "flooding" into hospital. In his YouTube video following the attack, Dr Islam said "We urge you to put pressure on your government - put pressure on anyone - to help us." "
"In some reports of the alleged atrocity, a supposed ‘British doctor’, Shajul Islam, was quoted or shown on the spot, described as a ‘volunteer treating victims in hospital’. Actually, he shouldn’t really be called a British doctor.He was struck off the British medical register for ‘misconduct’ in March 2016. The General Medical Council won’t say why. And in 2012 Shajul Islam was charged with terror offences in a British court. He was accused of imprisoning John Cantlie, a British photographer, and a Dutchman, Jeroen Oerlemans.Both men were held by a militant group in Syria and both were wounded when they tried to escape. Shajul Islam, it was alleged, was among their captors. Shajul Islam’s trial collapsed in 2013, when it was revealed that Mr Cantlie had been abducted once again, and could not give evidence.Mr Oerlemans refused to give evidence for fear that it would further endanger Mr Cantlie. Mr Oerlemans has since been killed in Libya. So the supposedly benevolent medical man at the scene of the alleged atrocity turns out to be a struck-off doctor who was once put on trial for kidnapping."
"Your" could mean the government of the viewer. All viewers are not British, you know. In any case, the doctor is working with one of the rebels - maybe, not ISIS bit JaN.
Comments
'Why the Scottish Tory leader said it's unlikely the Conservatives will win the general election'
http://tinyurl.com/ksk3u73
Of course we know now that TRuthy is likely to contradict herself on key policy issues 3 times before breakfast, but still..
A better system would be to have visa free travel (such as through a waiver program like the US and Australia), and a low bar for skilled immigration.
But that's cultural sensitivity for you.
In any case, It's unlikely to pass on the EU end because Eastern European member states will not want to see special treatment for brits considering we are expressly curbing rights for their nationals.
But there is no downside for the SNP in calling for one sooner - they would be fairly confident of winning an early one, and agitating for it even if they don't get it doesn't seem to be harming their image any.
"Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union."
So they would need treaty change for this idea to get off the ground.
Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived.
Deciding to do nothing is as worthy of criticism as deciding to do something.
I'll repeat my view, which admittedly is far form universally accepted on here
There's no *good* answer now, but I'm bemused by how many people on here think Assad should remain in power, given everything he's done to his citizens.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/07/up-to-13000-secretly-hanged-in-syrian-jail-says-amnesty
Are we absolutely sure that it was Assad who carried it out ? My estimation: Assad 60%, JaN 30%, Others 10%. Both JaN and Others are rebels.
Remember Sarin can be manufactured in a laboratory. It looks like water and it evaporates. It does not need to be dropped from the sky.
BTW: I hold Assad responsible for the barrel bombs which actually killed far more people.
My estimation has not changed.
I big problem is that the sort of pay-as-you-go individual membership now suggested is so against EVERYTHING THE EU HAS ARGUED FOR 50 YEARS that it must be a ploy. The question is how to play it...
The Russian story is ... interesting. I treat it with the same disdain as I do their many contradictory stories over the MH17 shootdown. Basically: they're lying. They've lost all trust we should have in them when it comes to such events.
Did no one tell that he is a Tory?
Labour is two tribes - one is open, educated, well-off, international; the other is closed, parochial, poor, uneducated and attracted to UKIP. LibDems are open and international.
Labour is politically correct (think Harriet Harman); LibDems are for personal freedom and are more similar in that respect to UKIP.
I hope the LibDEms never go into coalition again but, if necessary, provide a confidence and supply arrangement, with no Ministers but the ability to pick and chose what legislation it supports.
They had great success in Libya with the same strategy. A thousand boats left Libya after that.
The only way the party moves forward is if it dumps them and starts afresh, but then it would have no identity at all as the more progressive wing has either left or been cowed by Corbyn's supporters.
It cannot go forward, or back.
Unless someone truly spectacular comes along to lead Labour are fucked in the next decade almost completely, and something new may be created out of their ashes much like the Liberals and Labour all those years ago.
Assad is a murderous despot, but a risk only to his own people. IS, Al Nusra and the others are murderous despots who are risks to the rest of us.
Now, the underlings may be complicit in war crimes as well. But it's clear that Assad is a massive stumbling block to peace. After that, grant the Kurds a homeland in Syria if they wish (even if that'll be massively unpopular with Turkey and Iran). The Kurdsh autonomous region in Iraq might be a model to follow.
It might be the same thing has to happen with the rest of the country: move it away from the dead-hand of a dictator to a more federal structure. This may cause massive population movements; then again, half the population's already moved (citation required).
It's not an easy answer, and in some ways is immoral. But there are no good answers.
What's your least-bad answer whilst keeping Assad in charge?
I do think that a rogue Pro-Assad unit is plausible though.
"Yet we did nothing, and produced a vacuum in which terrorists thrived."
We didn't do nothing. The CIA undermined Assad for years and encouraged the rebels because Assad was leaning East (Iran Shai) rather than West (Saudi Sunni). We (the CIA) initiated the chaos and vacuum. Clinton would have continued the CIA policy. I think Trump is more of a pragmatist.
Read Robert Kennedy Jr's account of the CIA and Syria.
http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/
Or Syrian aircraft bomb a rebel held poison gas factory and instead of it going up in a ball of fire given all the volatile compounds invloved it spreads out just like a poison gas bombing. And then the Russians bomb the hospital treating the victims?
I think they only go back as far as your grandparents on the light-vetting though.
The war is a civil war, and like all such wars it's a tremendous mess. There are even cases where different groups were fighting together against a common enemy on one front, whilst fighting each other elsewhere.
Time for US and UK to butt out of the middle east and let them settle their issues themselves rather than backing Saudi version all the time. We should not be involved toppling elected governments.
Your mistake is to view the proposal through the UK's anti-immigrant prism. The rest of the EU sees migration in a more positive light. The similarity of tariff barriers is there, no country gains by them.
"British-trained doctor has shared horrifying "evidence" that hundreds of innocent Syrians were gassed in an air attack today.
At least 58 people - including 11 children - are said to have died following the suspected gas attack in rebel-held Idlib province.
Hundreds of others have been left injured, with some victims reportedly seen choking, fainting and with foam around their mouths.
Dr Shajul Islam, who trained in the UK and now works in northern Syria , says seriously ill patients are still "flooding" into hospital. In his YouTube video following the attack, Dr Islam said "We urge you to put pressure on your government - put pressure on anyone - to help us." "
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/british-doctor-treating-syria-gas-10155129
"In some reports of the alleged atrocity, a supposed ‘British doctor’, Shajul Islam, was quoted or shown on the spot, described as a ‘volunteer treating victims in hospital’.
Actually, he shouldn’t really be called a British doctor.He was struck off the British medical register for ‘misconduct’ in March 2016. The General Medical Council won’t say why.
And in 2012 Shajul Islam was charged with terror offences in a British court.
He was accused of imprisoning John Cantlie, a British photographer, and a Dutchman, Jeroen Oerlemans.Both men were held by a militant group in Syria and both were wounded when they tried to escape. Shajul Islam, it was alleged, was among their captors. Shajul Islam’s trial collapsed in 2013, when it was revealed that Mr Cantlie had been abducted once again, and could not give evidence.Mr Oerlemans refused to give evidence for fear that it would further endanger Mr Cantlie. Mr Oerlemans has since been killed in Libya. So the supposedly benevolent medical man at the scene of the alleged atrocity turns out to be a struck-off doctor who was once put on trial for kidnapping."
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/04/peter-hitchens-our-noble-cause-dropping-bombs-on-behalf-of-al-qaeda.html#more
On another point: the person who initiated the chaos was not in America, or Saudi. It was Assad. He shoulders the blame.
Turning our backs just because we cravenly dd so before just compounds the error.
Can Manuel then opt out of his EU citizenship and get a refund?
Key point is that we do not know who really used them and our own people are such pathological cheating liars that you cannot trust anything they tell us.
If Cameron had secured that deal, Remain would have won by a landslide...
I'd be open to a better plan if somebody has one, but the process we've seen several times now has been escalating military action, which each time fails to achieve its objectives, which is blamed on insufficient military action, resulting in escalating military action, which etc etc.
Could they buy EU citizenship off eBay too?
Not people from India obviously as keeping out non-white people is a prime directive of EU immigration policy.
I travel around the EU a lot on business and if it got me through Customs easier and was priced reasonably my company would probably buy it for me. Like a souped-up EasyJet Speedy Boarding.
Given that the EU is currently saying you can't be in the single market without the four freedoms it does seem odd that they are floating the idea of being able to buy EU citizenship for NOTHING in return other than some cash. What about all those important principles? Does money now trump all that?
They really should have offered that to us last year, we would have bitten their hand off for such a deal.
1. He is the only candidate with real sustained momentum in the polls.
2. At least a third of the voters are reported to be undecided. Turnout is usually very high, over 80% in 2012. Most expect turnout to be down this time around, but even if it fell to 75% then there are at least 20% who will vote who have not yet made up their minds.
3. The Presidential race puts more emphasis on personality than policies, unlike a GE.
4. Melenchon is seen as the most popular politician and the least unpopular politician in France at the moment.
https://www.lesechos.fr/medias/2017/04/07/2050135_presidentielle-2017-les-sondages-des-echos-web-tete-0211955709354.jpg
5. If he makes it to the second round, he has proved beyond doubt that he is a star performer in TV debates. Not only that, his performance does shift voting intentions, as we have seen.
I don't expect any polls showing him to be in the top two, as most of the undecided are likely to remain undecided until the day itself or at least a day or two before the vote in just two weeks time.
I will probably end up with egg on my face and he will come trailing in 4th place, but FWIW, I think the reasons above show that there could be a major shock on the cards.