On topic, I'm struggling to see the news here. Donald Trump rode to power on anti-immigrant anti-Muslim rhetoric. He struggled to condemn American neo-Nazis. Why would anyone think he'd have a problem with the British variety?
the news is N Korea just launched a bigger missile and Trump has delefected his impotence with some tweets
Cyclefree was absolutely correct yesterday when she said the jyllands posten cartoons should have been the 'I am Spartacus' moment for liberal democracy in the west.
[Snipped for length]
In short: The SJW mob made it impossible to address the problem of radical islam seriously, driving people further and further into the arms of populist strongmen out of fear of radical islam. Strongmen have exploited the news cycle for their own gains.
So no, I'm afraid Trump isn't an idiot. He knows exactly what he is doing, and he is confident in what he does because he knows *a significant percentage of people in the west actively agree with him*. Have you ever been on Gab? Or /pol/? Or read the thousands of hateful and vitriolic comments when Tesco releases a Christmas ad with muslims in it? Try it some time. That kind of thinking is mainstream now.
Britain First has two million likes on Facebook. Videos like the ones Trump retweeted on the Britain First Facebook page are posted daily. They have titles like "American Student attacked in Muslim Patrols" and attract between 50-250k views, *daily*.
The far right is no longer limited to a few Stormfront-style cranks.
The west's craven failure to stand up to the morally repugnant political ideology of *radical* islam has driven a terrified population into the arms of these manipulative strongmen. The hate is there and it is real and to pretend that it is limited to just a few cranks is to stick your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand. 60,000 neo Nazis marched in Poland this month. Wake up. The problem is much, much, much bigger than Trump.
History will not look back on us kindly. We failed to defend liberal, tolerant values. We failed to defend them from radical islam. We failed to defend them from the authoritarian mobs shutting down college campuses and tearing down statues. And ultimately we failed to defend them when authoritaran strongmen came along to a weak and frightened population and said "don't worry, follow me, I will protect you".
In our arrogance, we declared the end of ideology and believed that liberal, free market democracy would *naturally* win, because it was the best ideology, so we didn't need to fight for it.
Big mistake.
The Rushdie fatwa should have been the "I am Spartacus" moment. A lot of the appeasement happened in the years thereafter - certainly in Britain (see, for instance, Kenan Malik's book "From Fatwa to Jihad"). But the Danish cartoons issue should also have had the same reaction because by then we had more than enough evidence of what radical Islamism was capable of.
It is beyond depressing that it is groups like Britain First which try to use concern about Islamism to whip up hatred of Muslims. These groups are not the defenders of liberal democracy; they are fascistic and violent and illiberal in exactly the same way as Islamists are fascistic and violent and illiberal.
I could be wrong, but Brendan's enthusiasm for the Donald phenomenon seems to have taken a hit:
First things first: for Trump to share this tweet is unquestionably evidence of his idiocy, childishness, prejudice, dearth of the most basic PR nous, and lack of online decorum. The man’s a moron. It’s one thing for a teenager to retweet stuff he knows he shouldn’t, or for us non-presidents to get on Facebook when we’re drunk and Like stupid shit. But the president of the United States? That is just nuts. It’s proof of his infantile streak, his lack of awareness of the historic responsibilities of his office. This artless man should have his phone taken off him.
Hopefully this mean a merciful end to posts along the lines of 'I'm no fan of Trump but to suggest he's a childish, corrupt, morally bankrupt, moronic, racist boor is very far from the truth. He's a billionaire fgs!'
The Rushdie fatwa should have been the "I am Spartacus" moment. A lot of the appeasement happened in the years thereafter - certainly in Britain (see, for instance, Kenan Malik's book "From Fatwa to Jihad"). But the Danish cartoons issue should also have had the same reaction because by then we had more than enough evidence of what radical Islamism was capable of.
It is beyond depressing that it is groups like Britain First which try to use concern about Islamism to whip up hatred of Muslims. These groups are not the defenders of liberal democracy; they are fascistic and violent and illiberal in exactly the same way as Islamists are fascistic and violent and illiberal.
I wouldn't dream to take words out of your mouth, as I agree with everything you've said here. Radical Islam was always a threat, we just didn't see it that way in the cold war and immediate aftermath.
To put it in the perspective of someone from a slightly younger generation, I learned about Salman Rushdie and the Satanic Verses in school, a few years later in the mid nineties, and back then, our teachers taught us about it in such a way that was more or less explaining the funny old behaviour of a funny old part of the world, a million miles away - the impression I got from my school days was that it was an abberation, an oddity, something that could never happen again.
9/11 changed all of that. There was no longer any doubt - these were not funny old people from a funny old culture with funny old beliefs - this was war. I agree with you - the west had many chances to stand up to the fundamentalist, policiticsed version of Islam a long time before Jillands Posten. But one wonders how the last decade would have played out if 2005 was the moment when we stood up and said "no".
I am a massive fan of his writings and when I saw your post I thought he must have died. Whilst I am saddened by the real news I am also hugely relieved.
Together with Emily Thornberry, Diane Abbott, Emma Dent Coad and Dawn Butler its quite a group.
Are there any others I've forgotten about ?
Naz shah but she's from the north
The British lawyer who has been "disappeared" in Bangladesh must have had a constituency MP. Who, I wonder?
Re Siddique: she reacted very badly. Not good.
Re what she should do: she is correct that this man's case should be taken up by his MP. She is also correct that she is not responsible for what happens in Bangladesh.
But she is missing the point, I think. She has - according to Channel 4 - been approached by the family of this man because they have been advised that Tulip Siddique's closeness to the PM of Bangladesh - her aunt - provides the best opportunity to get this man released. So she is being asked for her help on the basis of her USP in the particular circumstances of this case.
She could say that she will not mix business with family. This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It is slightly undermined by the fact that she has on a number of occasions mixed business with family e.g. trips to see Putin with her aunt. And she has also on occasion said that she is or has been a spokesperson for her aunt's party. Plus, more importantly, she has said that she tries to help Bangladeshis in Britain. So hard for her to maintain this line really.
It would be more morally responsible for her to, at least, speak with this man's MP, and collectively see whether she could assist in some way. That would look better than simply refusing on the basis that he is not her constituent. It would also avoid creating a perception that she is happy to trumpet her links with her aunt when it suits her but will not challenge her aunt's regime when it does something which is not in line with the human rights which Siddique loudly proclaims. She does need to address the possibility that a perception might be created that she is willing to turn a blind eye to abuses of human rights when they are committed by members of her family. This is not a good look for an MP who is making much of the work she has done to attack Iran's human rights record.
But my overall take on this is how surprisingly poor and unprofessional she was when questioned by Channel 4. It would have been so easy for her to say politely that she was not aware of this case but that she would happily look into it if only a details were passed to her in the proper way. For someone to crumble so easily when faced with a not very difficult question does not speak well of her basic skills.
Hmm, Barnier is a pro, and this was a set-piece speech, not an off-the-cuff remark. I don't think it's some kind of gaffe.
Maybe he's actually addressing our EU friends, and subtly reminding them that no deal would have implications beyond the economic?
Barnier was brushing up his Brito-sceptic credentials methinks. He's auditioning for the top job. Disparagement works better for your career than encouragement as many of the equivalent ilk on our side have worked out. A miserable speech, even if Barnier accused us of self-indulgence with Brexit rather than wilfulness on security issues, as claimed by British officials.
The British lawyer who has been "disappeared" in Bangladesh must have had a constituency MP. Who, I wonder?
Re Siddique: she reacted very badly. Not good.
Re what she should do: she is correct that this man's case should be taken up by his MP. She is also correct that she is not responsible for what happens in Bangladesh.
But she is missing the point, I think. She has - according to Channel 4 - been approached by the family of this man because they have been advised that Tulip Siddique's closeness to the PM of Bangladesh - her aunt - provides the best opportunity to get this man released. So she is being asked for her help on the basis of her USP in the particular circumstances of this case.
She could say that she will not mix business with family. This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It is slightly undermined by the fact that she has on a number of occasions mixed business with family e.g. trips to see Putin with her aunt. And she has also on occasion said that she is or has been a spokesperson for her aunt's party. Plus, more importantly, she has said that she tries to help Bangladeshis in Britain. So hard for her to maintain this line really.
It would be more morally responsible for her to, at least, speak with this man's MP, and collectively see whether she could assist in some way. That would look better than simply refusing on the basis that he is not her constituent. It would also avoid creating a perception that she is happy to trumpet her links with her aunt when it suits her but will not challenge her aunt's regime when it does something which is not in line with the human rights which Siddique loudly proclaims. She does need to address the possibility that a perception might be created that she is willing to turn a blind eye to abuses of human rights when they are committed by members of her family. This is not a good look for an MP who is making much of the work she has done to attack Iran's human rights record.
But my overall take on this is how surprisingly poor and unprofessional she was when questioned by Channel 4. It would have been so easy for her to say politely that she was not aware of this case but that she would happily look into it if only a details were passed to her in the proper way. For someone to crumble so easily when faced with a not very difficult question does not speak well of her basic skills.
I wouldn't dream to take words out of your mouth, as I agree with everything you've said here. Radical Islam was always a threat, we just didn't see it that way in the cold war and immediate aftermath.
To put it in the perspective of someone from a slightly younger generation, I learned about Salman Rushdie and the Satanic Verses in school, a few years later in the mid nineties, and back then, our teachers taught us about it in such a way that was more or less explaining the funny old behaviour of a funny old part of the world, a million miles away - the impression I got from my school days was that it was an abberation, an oddity, something that could never happen again.
9/11 changed all of that. There was no longer any doubt - these were not funny old people from a funny old culture with funny old beliefs - this was war. I agree with you - the west had many chances to stand up to the fundamentalist, policiticsed version of Islam a long time before Jillands Posten. But one wonders how the last decade would have played out if 2005 was the moment when we stood up and said "no".
It's little wonder nothing was done in 2005 if you were being taught that it was funny old behaviour in a world a million miles away. That is the sound of people hoping that this was the case and ignoring the facts.
The chilling fact about the Rushdie fatwa was that citizens in this country were burning books and threatening another British citizen at the behest of a foreign political and religious leader. They were putting the interests of their religion - at least as interpreted by this foreign leader - ahead of their obligations as British citizens, their obligations at the very least not to break the laws of the land, let alone any obligations arising from the fact that they were British citizens living in Britain.
That fact alone should have rung huge alarm bells in the corridors of power here. The fact that it didn't - or rather that the reaction was to see how appease it rather than face it down - led to the climate in which years later imams from the Middle East could deliberately circulate cartoons and add a few more which had not been published by the Danes and were not drawn by them in order to inflame passions and gain more power for their particular brand of Islam. They knew that many in the West were weak on this.
I quite agree that if the reaction had been different in 2005 who knows how things might have turned out.
But Islamism did not start in 2001. It started many many decades beforehand and the signs were there. It was a story we did not want to read. And too many of us don't want to read it now.
The British lawyer who has been "disappeared" in Bangladesh must have had a constituency MP. Who, I wonder?
Re Siddique: she reacted very badly. Not good.
Re what she should do: she is correct that this man's case should be taken up by his MP. She is also correct that she is not responsible for what happens in Bangladesh.
But she is missing the point, I think. She has - according to Channel 4 - been approached by the family of this man because they have been advised that Tulip Siddique's closeness to the PM of Bangladesh - her aunt - provides the best opportunity to get this man released. So she is being asked for her help on the basis of her USP in the particular circumstances of this case.
She could say that she will not mix business with family. This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It is slightly undermined by the fact that she has on a number of occasions mixed business with family e.g. trips to see Putin with her aunt. And she has also on occasion said that she is or has been a spokesperson for her aunt's party. Plus, more importantly, she has said that she tries to help Bangladeshis in Britain. So hard for her to maintain this line really.
It would be more morally responsible for her to, at least, speak with this man's MP, and collectively see whether she could assist in some way. That would look better than simply refusing on the basis that he is not her constituent. It would also avoid creating a perception that she is happy to trumpet her links with her aunt when it suits her but will not challenge her aunt's regime when it does something which is not in line with the human rights which Siddique loudly proclaims. She does need to address the possibility that a perception might be created that she is willing to turn a blind eye to abuses of human rights when they are committed by members of her family. This is not a good look for an MP who is making much of the work she has done to attack Iran's human rights record.
But my overall take on this is how surprisingly poor and unprofessional she was when questioned by Channel 4. It would have been so easy for her to say politely that she was not aware of this case but that she would happily look into it if only a details were passed to her in the proper way. For someone to crumble so easily when faced with a not very difficult question does not speak well of her basic skills.
Sadly, Theresa has only herself to blame in getting dragged into Trump's tomfoolery. We'd just had the Brexit vote, Farage was sucking up to the Prez, and Theresa was under pressure to ingratiate herself by the Alt-Right and 51st-State tendencies. She should have gone with her own better judgement and kept her distance. All but the fanatics would have understood.
Except as noted Trump has already been received by others like Macron. I deeply, deeply dislike Trump, but the furore over the invitation and the whinging about it since has been incredibly out of proportion. A statement may well be appropriate here, but when people start talking of the damage in associating with him, I think everyone could stand to get a grip. I know he provoked such strong reactions, but come on.
No, Theresa panicked - Farage looked to be conducting the UK's foreign policy with the US, and the Ultra-Leave brigade were everywhere, seeing Brexit as an means of imposing their miserable far-Right politics on Britain. Theresa should have stood firm, but she decided to align herself with those dark forces. A decision I suspect she bitterly regrets - every one of her subsequent problems arising from that time.
I never said she didn’t act hastily. But that doesn’t make her culpable for trump as she ‘aligned’ with him, that’s nonsense.i have yet to see an explanation for how those who have reached out to his ‘dark forces’ like Macron get a pass. Because May held his hand and tried to butter him up first? Oh heaven forfend what a crime.
Congrats to kyf 100 on their post, depressing though bits of it are. It is always a mistake to assume there is some destined path of progress, that certain ways will develop or even be sustained without always fighting, metaphorically, for them.
TMay can and should call out Trump on this. It is a basic point of principle and decency and she needs to make a stand.
Trump.is not the USA and will not be in power forever. She needs to do the right thing.
She can call him out on it, and the fact she can despite, gasp, holding hands with him, is the main reason the idea she,alone of world leaders who’ve engaged with him, is tainted, was always suspect.
Oh Theresa what are you doing responding to a non-story?? Didn’t Rachel and Richard make it clear it was best to do nothing?
Can't speak for Rachel, but the point I was making was to say it wasn't a problem for the PM, not that she (or in this case her spokesman) wouldn't respond to a question about it.
Indeed. Question response or statement, it hardly matters. Of all the reasons may deserves criticism, and there are many, this one I feel for her as it is clear she cannot win - say nothing and she endorsed him, criticise his point and oh no, she’s still perceived as in league with him, apparently. For some reason. Somehow. With nothing but a photo and overly keen invitation to go on.
Though while some may decry a little too much formula in the marvel process, it’s notewrthy that 16 movies in so the average critical rating of their movies is still high and even improving. An impressive feat that none have been outright bad (though some less well received)
On topic, I'm struggling to see the news here. Donald Trump rode to power on anti-immigrant anti-Muslim rhetoric. He struggled to condemn American neo-Nazis. Why would anyone think he'd have a problem with the British variety?
That, and he always tweets reflexively.
He probably doesn't know who Britain First are, nor will he have read about it to find out. To the extent he did clock the name, if he did at all, he probably thought, "Ah, just like America First.. they agree with me.", and just clicked the 'retweet' button.
So he's spread his message in his usual manner. It's re-opened a line of attack on him for his opponents. And various others can parade their disgust on social media.
Indeed, Mr. Meeks. It's almost as if the EU has decided to earnestly forget NATO exists.
Except Barnier mentions it specifically ...
As for the future, I would like to stress two points: First, as Prime Minister Theresa May has said, the United Kingdom is leaving the Union, but not leaving Europe. Second, despite the UK's withdrawal, we shall maintain our strategic capability: there will be no security vacuum in Europe. There are three reasons for this: London's withdrawal will not affect bilateral cooperation between certain Member States and the United Kingdom, particularly at operational level. The UK will for example continue to play a part in NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence in Estonia and Poland. London's withdrawal will not affect the strategic partnership between the European Union and NATO. After all, Theresa May has assured the Member States several times that the UK is committed unconditionally to maintaining European security. I welcome this commitment and thank Theresa May for making it. History teaches us that there must be no horse-trading over the security of Europeans – that is an absolute necessity.
So it's real purpose is just to undermine TMay's position and remove one of her cards to play.
Much more to come.
In the trade deal negotiations, the EU will seek to identify any possible de-regulation that might provide a competitive advantage for the UK post-Brexit (especially on financial services, bonus cap, AIFMD directive) and look to lock-in the UK to those existing EU regulations, without any say, as a condition of any trade deal to prevent any possible "regulatory dumping".
Of course, they will be cheered on by all the usual suspects, including far too many on these shores.
The British lawyer who has been "disappeared" in Bangladesh must have had a constituency MP. Who, I wonder?
Re Siddique: she reacted very badly. Not good.
Re what she should do: she is correct that this man's case should be taken up by his MP. She is also correct that she is not responsible for what happens in Bangladesh.
But she is missing the point, I think. She has - according to Channel 4 - been approached by the family of this man because they have been advised that Tulip Siddique's closeness to the PM of Bangladesh - her aunt - provides the best opportunity to get this man released. So she is being asked for her help on the basis of her USP in the particular circumstances of this case.
She could say that she will not mix business with family. This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It is slightly undermined by the fact that she has on a number of occasions mixed business with family e.g. trips to see Putin with her aunt. And she has also on occasion said that she is or has been a spokesperson for her aunt's party. Plus, more importantly, she has said that she tries to help Bangladeshis in Britain. So hard for her to maintain this line really.
It would be more morally responsible for her to, at least, speak with this man's MP, and collectively see whether she could assist in some way. That would look better than simply refusing on the basis that he is not her constituent. It would also avoid creating a perception that she is happy to trumpet her links with her aunt when it suits her but will not challenge her aunt's regime when it does something which is not in line with the human rights which Siddique loudly proclaims. She does need to address the possibility that a perception might be created that she is willing to turn a blind eye to abuses of human rights when they are committed by members of her family. This is not a good look for an MP who is making much of the work she has done to attack Iran's human rights record.
But my overall take on this is how surprisingly poor and unprofessional she was when questioned by Channel 4. It would have been so easy for her to say politely that she was not aware of this case but that she would happily look into it if only a details were passed to her in the proper way. For someone to crumble so easily when faced with a not very difficult question does not speak well of her basic skills.
Many politicians seem very poor under any sort of pressure from the media - it’s probably why many adopt a hostile, dismissive tone even before an interviewer really gets into it as it is easier, if lazier.
The reports seem a pretty fair summary of the introductory words to the speech.
Sort-of, but the speech as a whole is a mixture of exhortation to the EU27 that they'll need to up their game with the UK no longer around, a bit of routine EU self-praise as you always get in Eurocrat speeches, and a reminder that they will actually continue to need to cooperate closely with the UK.
At the risk of cross-dressing for the second time this afternoon, I agree with Southam.
After the introduction, it's pretty banal Eurocratese with some uninspired sort-of-obvious-but-lacking-in-imagination decisions being communicated. It makes the introduction all the more bizarre.
I don't read it as 'accusing us of ducking out of the fight against Daesh', as has been alleged,, but accurately expressing the bewilderment of our EU friends that we decided to leave at a time when they saw an increased need to stand together.
But, a reason would always have been found to make that argument, no matter when we decided to Leave.
The heresy we've committed is to break with ever-closer union of the European continent.
Indeed, Mr. Meeks. It's almost as if the EU has decided to earnestly forget NATO exists.
Except Barnier mentions it specifically ...
As for the future, I would like to stress two points: First, as Prime Minister Theresa May has said, the United Kingdom is leaving the Union, but not leaving Europe. Second, despite the UK's withdrawal, we shall maintain our strategic capability: there will be no security vacuum in Europe. There are three reasons for this: London's withdrawal will not affect bilateral cooperation between certain Member States and the United Kingdom, particularly at operational level. The UK will for example continue to play a part in NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence in Estonia and Poland. London's withdrawal will not affect the strategic partnership between the European Union and NATO. After all, Theresa May has assured the Member States several times that the UK is committed unconditionally to maintaining European security. I welcome this commitment and thank Theresa May for making it. History teaches us that there must be no horse-trading over the security of Europeans – that is an absolute necessity.
So it's real purpose is just to undermine TMay's position and remove one of her cards to play.
Much more to come.
In the trade deal negotiations, the EU will seek to identify any possible de-regulation that might provide a competitive advantage for the UK post-Brexit (especially on financial services, bonus cap, AIFMD directive) and look to lock-in the UK to those existing EU regulations, without any say, as a condition of any trade deal to prevent any possible "regulatory dumping".
Of course, they will be cheered on by all the usual suspects, including far too many on these shores.
So in others words we're set to get nothing out of Brexit other than a massive bill and no influence.
The reports seem a pretty fair summary of the introductory words to the speech.
He explains why the initial reaction to the British vote was shock and then goes on to talk about how it has driven the EU27 closer together. I really can't see the problem with it.
The words @CarlottaVance quoted below seem to be a direct suggestion that Britain voting to leave the EU was a desertion of its collective role on defence. It's an extraordinary thing to say at the present stage.
They seem to me to be a description of how the EU27 felt when they found out the result. They were said at the start of a speech to create a context for the rest of the speech. I really can't see the problem.
On the day that the British PM is in Iraq discussing the fight against Daesh and in a year that the UK has suffered multiple terrorist attacks to suggest that we are abandoning our fight against Daesh is tin-eared at best, downright insulting at worst.....
"our beautiful cities like Coventry, Birmingham..."
I might be bias as an old Coventrian,
Alot of the civic stuff in Coventry is done in St Mary's guildhall and St Michael's cathedral. Those buildings do have a certain beauty, as does Spon Street - essentially anything built before about 1900 (+ the Cathedral) I'd argue (You could even arguably include my old school !) - but to argue the whole city is beautiful would be a push to put it mildly.
Mind you I much prefer the countryside, old castles and small towns such as Laugharne where we went on holiday near https://tinyurl.com/ycukb5n2
The British lawyer who has been "disappeared" in Bangladesh must have had a constituency MP. Who, I wonder?
Re Siddique: she reacted very badly. Not good.
Re what she should do: she is correct that this man's case should be taken up by his MP. She is also correct that she is not responsible for what happens in Bangladesh.
But she is missing the point, I think. She has - according to Channel 4 - been approached by the family of this man because they have been advised that Tulip Siddique's closeness to the PM of Bangladesh - her aunt - provides the best opportunity to get this man released. So she is being asked for her help on the basis of her USP in the particular circumstances of this case.
She could say that she will not mix business with family. This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It is slightly undermined by the fact that she has on a number of occasions mixed business with family e.g. trips to see Putin with her aunt. And she has also on occasion said that she is or has been a spokesperson for her aunt's party. Plus, more importantly, she has said that she tries to help Bangladeshis in Britain. So hard for her to maintain this line really.
It would be more morally responsible for her to, at least, speak with this man's MP, and collectively see whether she could assist in some way. That would look better than simply refusing on the basis that he is not her constituent. It would also avoid creating a perception that she is happy to trumpet her links with her aunt when it suits her but will not challenge her aunt's regime when it does something which is not in line with the human rights which Siddique loudly proclaims. She does need to address the possibility that a perception might be created that she is willing to turn a blind eye to abuses of human rights when they are committed by members of her family. This is not a good look for an MP who is making much of the work she has done to attack Iran's human rights record.
But my overall take on this is how surprisingly poor and unprofessional she was when questioned by Channel 4. It would have been so easy for her to say politely that she was not aware of this case but that she would happily look into it if only a details were passed to her in the proper way. For someone to crumble so easily when faced with a not very difficult question does not speak well of her basic skills.
Indeed, Mr. Meeks. It's almost as if the EU has decided to earnestly forget NATO exists.
Except Barnier mentions it specifically ...
As for the future, I would like to stress two points: First, as Prime Minister Theresa May has said, the United Kingdom is leaving the Union, but not leaving Europe. Second, despite the UK's withdrawal, we shall maintain our strategic capability: there will be no security vacuum in Europe. There are three reasons for this: London's withdrawal will not affect bilateral cooperation between certain Member States and the United Kingdom, particularly at operational level. The UK will for example continue to play a part in NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence in Estonia and Poland. London's withdrawal will not affect the strategic partnership between the European Union and NATO. After all, Theresa May has assured the Member States several times that the UK is committed unconditionally to maintaining European security. I welcome this commitment and thank Theresa May for making it. History teaches us that there must be no horse-trading over the security of Europeans – that is an absolute necessity.
So it's real purpose is just to undermine TMay's position and remove one of her cards to play.
Much more to come.
In the trade deal negotiations, the EU will seek to identify any possible de-regulation that might provide a competitive advantage for the UK post-Brexit (especially on financial services, bonus cap, AIFMD directive) and look to lock-in the UK to those existing EU regulations, without any say, as a condition of any trade deal to prevent any possible "regulatory dumping".
Of course, they will be cheered on by all the usual suspects, including far too many on these shores.
So in others words we're set to get nothing out of Brexit other than a massive bill and no influence.
Like I said, cheered on by the usual suspects on these shores.
I would walk away from such a deal. There is no point in having no votes, no influence and no effective control over our regulatory, trade, or for that matter, immigration regime.
But, there are all sorts of shades of grey in between. And it isn't in your interest to explore any of them, except highlighting the blackest of blacks, because of your confirmation bias in wanting the UK to totally abandon Brexit.
I am a massive fan of his writings and when I saw your post I thought he must have died. Whilst I am saddened by the real news I am also hugely relieved.
Together with Emily Thornberry, Diane Abbott, Emma Dent Coad and Dawn Butler its quite a group.
Are there any others I've forgotten about ?
Naz shah but she's from the north
The British lawyer who has been "disappeared" in Bangladesh must have had a constituency MP. Who, I wonder?
He's not British. He's Bangladeshi, but British trained.
Tonight's Channel 4 programme is not good for Ms Siddiqe.
Was it a coincidence that after the Channel 4 interview with her - but before the programme was first aired yesterday - the lawyer's family was approached by the Bangladeshi authorities and told to be careful? And if not a coincidence how did they know that this story was being picked up by the press, including the fact of an appeal by the lawyer's mother to Ms Siddiqe?
Very silly of the MP to put on her website all sorts of statements about how she gets involved in Bangladeshi issues and politics, then take them off. It just makes her look as if she has something to hide.
It would be good if all this press attention led to the government doing something about this case. Or even an organisation like Amnesty. Aren't the "disappeared" and the "unlawfully detained" exactly the sort of people they ought to be helping?
I am a massive fan of his writings and when I saw your post I thought he must have died. Whilst I am saddened by the real news I am also hugely relieved.
I've just re-read it in full. The introduction is extraordinary, and totally sours the rest.
I can only imagine that after him realising we've belatedly compromised on the first phase of negotiations with the EU, and Brexit is still taking place, he's laying down his markers for the next.
I am a massive fan of his writings and when I saw your post I thought he must have died. Whilst I am saddened by the real news I am also hugely relieved.
"our beautiful cities like Coventry, Birmingham..."
I might be bias as an old Coventrian,
Alot of the civic stuff in Coventry is done in St Mary's guildhall and St Michael's cathedral. Those buildings do have a certain beauty, as does Spon Street - essentially anything built before about 1900 (+ the Cathedral) I'd argue (You could even arguably include my old school !) - but to argue the whole city is beautiful would be a push to put it mildly.
Mind you I much prefer the countryside, old castles and small towns such as Laugharne where we went on holiday near https://tinyurl.com/ycukb5n2
As for Birmingham !
Coventry used to be beautiful.
To really get Barnier going, perhaps we could make a UK speech about European cities of culture, with an introduction about how the Luftwaffe ruined it during WWII?
In a matter as important as this I always consult Woody and remember that more Russians died at Stalingrad than all the UK dead put together.Woody says #Resist
"our beautiful cities like Coventry, Birmingham..."
I might be bias as an old Coventrian,
Alot of the civic stuff in Coventry is done in St Mary's guildhall and St Michael's cathedral. Those buildings do have a certain beauty, as does Spon Street - essentially anything built before about 1900 (+ the Cathedral) I'd argue (You could even arguably include my old school !) - but to argue the whole city is beautiful would be a push to put it mildly.
Mind you I much prefer the countryside, old castles and small towns such as Laugharne where we went on holiday near https://tinyurl.com/ycukb5n2
As for Birmingham !
Coventry used to be beautiful.
To really get Barnier going, perhaps we could make a UK speech about European cities of culture, with an introduction about how the Luftwaffe ruined it during WWII?
Personally I'd be aghast and ashamed if any serious British politician sank to that. It's depressing though: when flustered many anti-Europeans have to reach for the Spitfire helmet.
I am a massive fan of his writings and when I saw your post I thought he must have died. Whilst I am saddened by the real news I am also hugely relieved.
Context please!!
Ah sozza yes should have put some context.
A real shocker as I think his work is great also.
What has he done/happened?
“Inappropriate behaviour”
And what does that mean? Speaking on the phone during a church christening? Putting his elbows on the table when eating? Staring at a woman's breasts? Groping? Rape?
Why can't people just use clear words rather than this evasive bollocks?
"our beautiful cities like Coventry, Birmingham..."
I might be bias as an old Coventrian,
Alot of the civic stuff in Coventry is done in St Mary's guildhall and St Michael's cathedral. Those buildings do have a certain beauty, as does Spon Street - essentially anything built before about 1900 (+ the Cathedral) I'd argue (You could even arguably include my old school !) - but to argue the whole city is beautiful would be a push to put it mildly.
Mind you I much prefer the countryside, old castles and small towns such as Laugharne where we went on holiday near https://tinyurl.com/ycukb5n2
As for Birmingham !
Coventry used to be beautiful.
To really get Barnier going, perhaps we could make a UK speech about European cities of culture, with an introduction about how the Luftwaffe ruined it during WWII?
Personally I'd be aghast and ashamed if any serious British politician sank to that. It's depressing though: when flustered many anti-Europeans have to reach for the Spitfire helmet.
To be fair it was Juncker who recently said that while he thanked the British for the war it was now time to pay. I'd be pretty ashamed if the head of an organisation which I belonged to spoke like that about a member country. There are cemeteries all over Europe full of British people who paid with their lives so that people like him could have the freedom to behave like an insensitive arse.
In a matter as important as this I always consult Woody and remember that more Russians died at Stalingrad than all the UK dead put together.Woody says #Resist
htps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKVnur5DkdI
Well, members of my family fought and died in British uniforms, and I am sorry you find their contribution inadequate. Stalin may or may not have said that "To the defeat of Nazism, the British gave Time, the Americans gave Money, and the Soviet Union gave Blood" but whether he did or not, it is a bit disappointing that a quotation attributed to him does more justice to your own country than you can apparently manage.
"our beautiful cities like Coventry, Birmingham..."
I might be bias as an old Coventrian,
Alot of the civic stuff in Coventry is done in St Mary's guildhall and St Michael's cathedral. Those buildings do have a certain beauty, as does Spon Street - essentially anything built before about 1900 (+ the Cathedral) I'd argue (You could even arguably include my old school !) - but to argue the whole city is beautiful would be a push to put it mildly.
Mind you I much prefer the countryside, old castles and small towns such as Laugharne where we went on holiday near https://tinyurl.com/ycukb5n2
As for Birmingham !
Coventry used to be beautiful.
To really get Barnier going, perhaps we could make a UK speech about European cities of culture, with an introduction about how the Luftwaffe ruined it during WWII?
Personally I'd be aghast and ashamed if any serious British politician sank to that. It's depressing though: when flustered many anti-Europeans have to reach for the Spitfire helmet.
To be fair it was Juncker who recently said that while he thanked the British for the war it was now time to pay. I'd be pretty ashamed if the head of an organisation which I belonged to spoke like that about a member country. There are cemeteries all over Europe full of British people who paid with their lives so that people like him could have the freedom to behave like an insensitive arse.
I agree. Although probably intended as a pop at the British 'licked two saved the rest' attitude towards Europe, it came across as ungracious and crass. But then this whole whataboutery is equally childish and unhelpful. Let us Brits rise above it if no one else!
Together with Emily Thornberry, Diane Abbott, Emma Dent Coad and Dawn Butler its quite a group.
Are there any others I've forgotten about ?
Naz shah but she's from the north
The British lawyer who has been "disappeared" in Bangladesh must have had a constituency MP. Who, I wonder?
He's not British. He's Bangladeshi, but British trained.
Tonight's Channel 4 programme is not good for Ms Siddiqe.
Was it a coincidence that after the Channel 4 interview with her - but before the programme was first aired yesterday - the lawyer's family was approached by the Bangladeshi authorities and told to be careful? And if not a coincidence how did they know that this story was being picked up by the press, including the fact of an appeal by the lawyer's mother to Ms Siddiqe?
Very silly of the MP to put on her website all sorts of statements about how she gets involved in Bangladeshi issues and politics, then take them off. It just makes her look as if she has something to hide.
It would be good if all this press attention led to the government doing something about this case. Or even an organisation like Amnesty. Aren't the "disappeared" and the "unlawfully detained" exactly the sort of people they ought to be helping?
Im sure Amnesty are doing what they can. FWIW - public attention can sway the Bangladesh govt - there have been cases where international outcry has got journalists released from very nasty situations.
"our beautiful cities like Coventry, Birmingham..."
I might be bias as an old Coventrian,
Alot of the civic stuff in Coventry is done in St Mary's guildhall and St Michael's cathedral. Those buildings do have a certain beauty, as does Spon Street - essentially anything built before about 1900 (+ the Cathedral) I'd argue (You could even arguably include my old school !) - but to argue the whole city is beautiful would be a push to put it mildly.
Mind you I much prefer the countryside, old castles and small towns such as Laugharne where we went on holiday near https://tinyurl.com/ycukb5n2
As for Birmingham !
Coventry used to be beautiful.
To really get Barnier going, perhaps we could make a UK speech about European cities of culture, with an introduction about how the Luftwaffe ruined it during WWII?
Personally I'd be aghast and ashamed if any serious British politician sank to that. It's depressing though: when flustered many anti-Europeans have to reach for the Spitfire helmet.
You obviously missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of the post.
Where's your condemnation of Juncker and Barnier's provocations towards the UK?
"our beautiful cities like Coventry, Birmingham..."
I might be bias as an old Coventrian,
Alot of the civic stuff in Coventry is done in St Mary's guildhall and St Michael's cathedral. Those buildings do have a certain beauty, as does Spon Street - essentially anything built before about 1900 (+ the Cathedral) I'd argue (You could even arguably include my old school !) - but to argue the whole city is beautiful would be a push to put it mildly.
Mind you I much prefer the countryside, old castles and small towns such as Laugharne where we went on holiday near https://tinyurl.com/ycukb5n2
As for Birmingham !
Coventry used to be beautiful.
To really get Barnier going, perhaps we could make a UK speech about European cities of culture, with an introduction about how the Luftwaffe ruined it during WWII?
Personally I'd be aghast and ashamed if any serious British politician sank to that. It's depressing though: when flustered many anti-Europeans have to reach for the Spitfire helmet.
To be fair it was Juncker who recently said that while he thanked the British for the war it was now time to pay. I'd be pretty ashamed if the head of an organisation which I belonged to spoke like that about a member country. There are cemeteries all over Europe full of British people who paid with their lives so that people like him could have the freedom to behave like an insensitive arse.
"our beautiful cities like Coventry, Birmingham..."
I might be bias as an old Coventrian,
Alot of the civic stuff in Coventry is done in St Mary's guildhall and St Michael's cathedral. Those buildings do have a certain beauty, as does Spon Street - essentially anything built before about 1900 (+ the Cathedral) I'd argue (You could even arguably include my old school !) - but to argue the whole city is beautiful would be a push to put it mildly.
Mind you I much prefer the countryside, old castles and small towns such as Laugharne where we went on holiday near https://tinyurl.com/ycukb5n2
As for Birmingham !
Coventry used to be beautiful.
To really get Barnier going, perhaps we could make a UK speech about European cities of culture, with an introduction about how the Luftwaffe ruined it during WWII?
Personally I'd be aghast and ashamed if any serious British politician sank to that. It's depressing though: when flustered many anti-Europeans have to reach for the Spitfire helmet.
To be fair it was Juncker who recently said that while he thanked the British for the war it was now time to pay. I'd be pretty ashamed if the head of an organisation which I belonged to spoke like that about a member country. There are cemeteries all over Europe full of British people who paid with their lives so that people like him could have the freedom to behave like an insensitive arse.
I agree. Although probably intended as a pop at the British 'licked two saved the rest' attitude towards Europe, it came across as ungracious and crass. But then this whole whataboutery is equally childish and unhelpful. Let us Brits rise above it if no one else!
Together with Emily Thornberry, Diane Abbott, Emma Dent Coad and Dawn Butler its quite a group.
Are there any others I've forgotten about ?
Naz shah but she's from the north
The British lawyer who has been "disappeared" in Bangladesh must have had a constituency MP. Who, I wonder?
He's not British. He's Bangladeshi, but British trained.
Tonight's Channel 4 programme is not good for Ms Siddiqe.
Was it a coincidence that after the Channel 4 interview with her - but before the programme was first aired yesterday - the lawyer's family was approached by the Bangladeshi authorities and told to be careful? And if not a coincidence how did they know that this story was being picked up by the press, including the fact of an appeal by the lawyer's mother to Ms Siddiqe?
Very silly of the MP to put on her website all sorts of statements about how she gets involved in Bangladeshi issues and politics, then take them off. It just makes her look as if she has something to hide.
It would be good if all this press attention led to the government doing something about this case. Or even an organisation like Amnesty. Aren't the "disappeared" and the "unlawfully detained" exactly the sort of people they ought to be helping?
Im sure Amnesty are doing what they can. FWIW - public attention can sway the Bangladesh govt - there have been cases where international outcry has got journalists released from very nasty situations.
I expect intervention from a British MP would also help. Which is rather the point the family are making. What is interesting is that, apparently, diplomats suggested the family approach the MP. Which, if true, does tend to suggest that they think - and may have reason to think - that the MP can do rather more than she claims.
The difficulty the MP is in is that it would involve her implicitly criticising her own family.
In a matter as important as this I always consult Woody and remember that more Russians died at Stalingrad than all the UK dead put together.Woody says #Resist
And for two years the Russians were busy providing war material to the Germans while British people were busy fighting the Germans. The Russians were perfectly happy to benefit from German aggression and indulge in aggression of their own. Of course they did much but their record was hardly unblemished. Ask a Pole. Or a Latvian. Or an Estonian. Or a Lithuanian.
In a matter as important as this I always consult Woody and remember that more Russians died at Stalingrad than all the UK dead put together.Woody says #Resist
And for two years the Russians were busy providing war material to the Germans while British people were busy fighting the Germans. The Russians were perfectly happy to benefit from German aggression and indulge in aggression of their own. Of course they did much but their record was hardly unblemished. Ask a Pole. Or a Latvian. Or an Estonian. Or a Lithuanian.
A further point is that generals in democracies tend to much be more careful about the lives of their men, than generals in dictatorships. That is appreciated far more by soldiers than by historians.
Winning, while minimising casualties, is preferable to winning while maximising them.
Comments
Watch it until the end.
its no reading glasses :-)
Hang on,
Yes they are
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/avengers-infinity-war/53687/avengers-infinity-war-trailer-breakdown
It is beyond depressing that it is groups like Britain First which try to use concern about Islamism to whip up hatred of Muslims. These groups are not the defenders of liberal democracy; they are fascistic and violent and illiberal in exactly the same way as Islamists are fascistic and violent and illiberal.
To put it in the perspective of someone from a slightly younger generation, I learned about Salman Rushdie and the Satanic Verses in school, a few years later in the mid nineties, and back then, our teachers taught us about it in such a way that was more or less explaining the funny old behaviour of a funny old part of the world, a million miles away - the impression I got from my school days was that it was an abberation, an oddity, something that could never happen again.
9/11 changed all of that. There was no longer any doubt - these were not funny old people from a funny old culture with funny old beliefs - this was war. I agree with you - the west had many chances to stand up to the fundamentalist, policiticsed version of Islam a long time before Jillands Posten. But one wonders how the last decade would have played out if 2005 was the moment when we stood up and said "no".
I am a massive fan of his writings and when I saw your post I thought he must have died. Whilst I am saddened by the real news I am also hugely relieved.
Context please!!
Re Siddique: she reacted very badly. Not good.
Re what she should do: she is correct that this man's case should be taken up by his MP. She is also correct that she is not responsible for what happens in Bangladesh.
But she is missing the point, I think. She has - according to Channel 4 - been approached by the family of this man because they have been advised that Tulip Siddique's closeness to the PM of Bangladesh - her aunt - provides the best opportunity to get this man released. So she is being asked for her help on the basis of her USP in the particular circumstances of this case.
She could say that she will not mix business with family. This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. It is slightly undermined by the fact that she has on a number of occasions mixed business with family e.g. trips to see Putin with her aunt. And she has also on occasion said that she is or has been a spokesperson for her aunt's party. Plus, more importantly, she has said that she tries to help Bangladeshis in Britain. So hard for her to maintain this line really.
It would be more morally responsible for her to, at least, speak with this man's MP, and collectively see whether she could assist in some way. That would look better than simply refusing on the basis that he is not her constituent. It would also avoid creating a perception that she is happy to trumpet her links with her aunt when it suits her but will not challenge her aunt's regime when it does something which is not in line with the human rights which Siddique loudly proclaims. She does need to address the possibility that a perception might be created that she is willing to turn a blind eye to abuses of human rights when they are committed by members of her family. This is not a good look for an MP who is making much of the work she has done to attack Iran's human rights record.
But my overall take on this is how surprisingly poor and unprofessional she was when questioned by Channel 4. It would have been so easy for her to say politely that she was not aware of this case but that she would happily look into it if only a details were passed to her in the proper way. For someone to crumble so easily when faced with a not very difficult question does not speak well of her basic skills.
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/935845322529624064
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/935845586137501696
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/935845930095562754
https://order-order.com/2017/11/29/labour-member-suspended-anti-semitism-probe/
The chilling fact about the Rushdie fatwa was that citizens in this country were burning books and threatening another British citizen at the behest of a foreign political and religious leader. They were putting the interests of their religion - at least as interpreted by this foreign leader - ahead of their obligations as British citizens, their obligations at the very least not to break the laws of the land, let alone any obligations arising from the fact that they were British citizens living in Britain.
That fact alone should have rung huge alarm bells in the corridors of power here. The fact that it didn't - or rather that the reaction was to see how appease it rather than face it down - led to the climate in which years later imams from the Middle East could deliberately circulate cartoons and add a few more which had not been published by the Danes and were not drawn by them in order to inflame passions and gain more power for their particular brand of Islam. They knew that many in the West were weak on this.
I quite agree that if the reaction had been different in 2005 who knows how things might have turned out.
But Islamism did not start in 2001. It started many many decades beforehand and the signs were there. It was a story we did not want to read. And too many of us don't want to read it now.
Though while some may decry a little too much formula in the marvel process, it’s notewrthy that 16 movies in so the average critical rating of their movies is still high and even improving. An impressive feat that none have been outright bad (though some less well received)
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/935933112596467712
He probably doesn't know who Britain First are, nor will he have read about it to find out. To the extent he did clock the name, if he did at all, he probably thought, "Ah, just like America First.. they agree with me.", and just clicked the 'retweet' button.
So he's spread his message in his usual manner. It's re-opened a line of attack on him for his opponents. And various others can parade their disgust on social media.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4491906/david-and-samantha-cameron-are-utterly-utterly-utterly-broken-over-brexit-claims-their-friend-kirstie-allsopp/
In the trade deal negotiations, the EU will seek to identify any possible de-regulation that might provide a competitive advantage for the UK post-Brexit (especially on financial services, bonus cap, AIFMD directive) and look to lock-in the UK to those existing EU regulations, without any say, as a condition of any trade deal to prevent any possible "regulatory dumping".
Of course, they will be cheered on by all the usual suspects, including far too many on these shores.
The heresy we've committed is to break with ever-closer union of the European continent.
Rachel Sylvester
Ofsted has uncovered evidence of prejudiced teaching at Islamic schools but ministers continue to duck the problem"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/muslim-children-are-being-spoonfed-misogyny-txw2r0lz6
Alot of the civic stuff in Coventry is done in St Mary's guildhall and St Michael's cathedral. Those buildings do have a certain beauty, as does Spon Street - essentially anything built before about 1900 (+ the Cathedral) I'd argue (You could even arguably include my old school !) - but to argue the whole city is beautiful would be a push to put it mildly.
Mind you I much prefer the countryside, old castles and small towns such as Laugharne where we went on holiday near https://tinyurl.com/ycukb5n2
As for Birmingham !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42169893
I would walk away from such a deal. There is no point in having no votes, no influence and no effective control over our regulatory, trade, or for that matter, immigration regime.
But, there are all sorts of shades of grey in between. And it isn't in your interest to explore any of them, except highlighting the blackest of blacks, because of your confirmation bias in wanting the UK to totally abandon Brexit.
A real shocker as I think his work is great also.
Was it a coincidence that after the Channel 4 interview with her - but before the programme was first aired yesterday - the lawyer's family was approached by the Bangladeshi authorities and told to be careful? And if not a coincidence how did they know that this story was being picked up by the press, including the fact of an appeal by the lawyer's mother to Ms Siddiqe?
Very silly of the MP to put on her website all sorts of statements about how she gets involved in Bangladeshi issues and politics, then take them off. It just makes her look as if she has something to hide.
It would be good if all this press attention led to the government doing something about this case. Or even an organisation like Amnesty. Aren't the "disappeared" and the "unlawfully detained" exactly the sort of people they ought to be helping?
I can only imagine that after him realising we've belatedly compromised on the first phase of negotiations with the EU, and Brexit is still taking place, he's laying down his markers for the next.
To really get Barnier going, perhaps we could make a UK speech about European cities of culture, with an introduction about how the Luftwaffe ruined it during WWII?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKVnur5DkdI
Why can't people just use clear words rather than this evasive bollocks?
FWIW - public attention can sway the Bangladesh govt - there have been cases where international outcry has got journalists released from very nasty situations.
NEW THREAD
Where's your condemnation of Juncker and Barnier's provocations towards the UK?
Oh that's right, there aren't any.
The difficulty the MP is in is that it would involve her implicitly criticising her own family.
And for two years the Russians were busy providing war material to the Germans while British people were busy fighting the Germans. The Russians were perfectly happy to benefit from German aggression and indulge in aggression of their own. Of course they did much but their record was hardly unblemished. Ask a Pole. Or a Latvian. Or an Estonian. Or a Lithuanian.
Winning, while minimising casualties, is preferable to winning while maximising them.