It's worth noting that the main People's Vote campaign hasn't wanted a vote on it in Parliament yet, because they think they'd lose. Their calculation is the mirror image of May's - they think people will turn to them as a last resort.
There is a rare difference of opinion on all this between Corbyn and McDonnell. Corbyn doesn't feel strongly about membership, thinks referendums divide working-class voters, and sympathises with the MPs in Leave seats who say that a referendum will just make life horrible for them. He doesn't bother with electoral calculations much - he reckons you should do what you think right, and voters will respect it in the end. McDonnell wants to win the next election as the main priority, and is also much more of a Remainer anyway, so he's both keener on a referendum and more worried about splits.
Personally I think Labour is missing a trick in not being Remain champions - it would have a good shot at keeping on board a lot of centrist voters who are uneasy about other things, and the number of Labour voters who hate the EU more than they dislike the Tories is small. But I'm more like McDonnell in looking for electoral advantage.
I believe McDonnell takes the Varoufakis view of the EU - it is a shit-show but the best thing to do is to try and change it from within, initially by electing lots of lefty MEPs across europe.
The alternative view (to which I subscribe, and I suspect Jezza does too) is that the best approach is to try to destroy it in its current form by leaving, and being the first of several dominoes to topple until the Brussels apparatchiks wake up and do something about it.
How do you think the domino effect is working?
First one hasn't toppled yet...
Edit: If Italy leaves the Euro, that will really kick things off.
Italy's household saving rate is higher than the EU average. So there are lots of lovely Euros stashed away in savings accounts. The people who hold those accounts are not going to want them redenominated into worthless lira. So it is very unlikely that political support for leaving the Euro will be forthcoming.
Any centrist Labour breakaway will perish almost immediately. It will be castigated by the media as a jejune elite project lacking real popular support.
Only electoral defeat can begin the restoration of sanity in the Labour Party.
When you say "the media" - I'm pretty sure only the Guardian knows of the term "jejune"!
And then it would end up as "juvenile" by the time it got through their subs.
Earlier in the week I think I was rebuffed for suggesting that our Imperial history (and refusal to learn from it) would lead to a Brexit Britain making decisions that put us at an economic and world standing loss.
Someone said something along the lines of (paraphrasing) if we don't like it they can jolly well stuff it up their jumper.
This is China today, on a military issue of some importance. I don't know the right needle to thread between antagonistic towards an expansionist China and still wanting to trade with them as our economy depends on it. But, also, I am not the Defence Secretary nor the Chancellor.
Who will it be tomorrow?
The US already has aircraft carriers in the South China Sea, a Chinese billionaire this week called the Australian Governm ent anti Chinese, both Taiwan and Japan are wary of Chinese sabre rattling.
This has more to do with the increasingly nationalist Xi Government in China than Brexit
China won't want to start any hint of a trade war off with the EU though, whereas on our own... well it is our ship and our trade negotiations. So the reality is it can be bought in as a factor, however wrong or unfair or unrelated one might think that is.
6% of our exports go to China (less than to the Swiss with whom we have just completed a post Brexit trade deal), 10% of our imports come from China
Generally I am not in favour of trimming our foreign policy in order to please foreign dictators in return for trade concessions. If I haven't criticised long-standing British policy in respect to Saudi Arabia, for example, then it's not because I wasn't thinking it.
However, given that China has a population > 1 billion and an economy still growing at a rate well in excess of the global average, you would have thought that it was precisely the sort of country that would provide the post-Brexit opportunities that we are leaving the EU in order to better exploit. So it is worth pointing to this contradiction in British foreign policy.
Maybe a close trading relationship with countries that [generally] share our commitment to democratic norms is worth more than a simple reading of GDP and population numbers would suggest?
Earlier in the week I think I was rebuffed for suggesting that our Imperial history (and refusal to learn from it) would lead to a Brexit Britain making decisions that put us at an economic and world standing loss.
Someone said something along the lines of (paraphrasing) if we don't like it they can jolly well stuff it up their jumper.
This is China today, on a military issue of some importance. I don't know the right needle to thread between antagonistic towards an expansionist China and still wanting to trade with them as our economy depends on it. But, also, I am not the Defence Secretary nor the Chancellor.
Who will it be tomorrow?
The US already has aircraft carriers in the South China Sea, a Chinese billionaire this week called the Australian Governm ent anti Chinese, both Taiwan and Japan are wary of Chinese sabre rattling.
This has more to do with the increasingly nationalist Xi Government in China than Brexit
China won't want to start any hint of a trade war off with the EU though, whereas on our own... well it is our ship and our trade negotiations. So the reality is it can be bought in as a factor, however wrong or unfair or unrelated one might think that is.
6% of our exports go to China (less than to the Swiss with whom we have just completed a post Brexit trade deal), 10% of our imports come from China
Generally I am not in favour of trimming our foreign policy in order to please foreign dictators in return for trade concessions. If I haven't criticised long-standing British policy in respect to Saudi Arabia, for example, then it's not because I wasn't thinking it.
However, given that China has a population > 1 billion and an economy still growing at a rate well in excess of the global average, you would have thought that it was precisely the sort of country that would provide the post-Brexit opportunities that we are leaving the EU in order to better exploit. So it is worth pointing to this contradiction in British foreign policy.
Maybe a close trading relationship with countries that [generally] share our commitment to democratic norms is worth more than a simple reading of GDP and population numbers would suggest?
I have never supported No Deal but democratic India is more closely aligned with our values than China and now growing faster than China is
Earlier in the week I think I was rebuffed for suggesting that our Imperial history (and refusal to learn from it) would lead to a Brexit Britain making decisions that put us at an economic and world standing loss.
Someone said something along the lines of (paraphrasing) if we don't like it they can jolly well stuff it up their jumper.
This is China today, on a military issue of some importance. I don't know the right needle to thread between antagonistic towards an expansionist China and still wanting to trade with them as our economy depends on it. But, also, I am not the Defence Secretary nor the Chancellor.
Who will it be tomorrow?
The US already has aircraft carriers in the South China Sea, a Chinese billionaire this week called the Australian Governm ent anti Chinese, both Taiwan and Japan are wary of Chinese sabre rattling.
This has more to do with the increasingly nationalist Xi Government in China than Brexit
China has also put China-NZ trade talks into the deep freeze after Huawei was banned from 5G network rollout. In fact, they even turned around an Air New Zealand plane this week...
China is more agressive about asserting its interests. However, our current predicament requires a judicious approach and tone, not Alan Patridge on a gunboat.
If we do anything against China it will be on US and Japanese coattails, we are just following their lead
Sending a carrier into the South China sea is crass and provocative. Williamson has not got a clue and, with Grayling, should be sacked
I have sailed from Japan v Korea and onto China through the South China Sea and the area is vast and highly political; we do not need to get involved at all
Earlier in the week I think I was rebuffed for suggesting that our Imperial history (and refusal to learn from it) would lead to a Brexit Britain making decisions that put us at an economic and world standing loss.
Someone said something along the lines of (paraphrasing) if we don't like it they can jolly well stuff it up their jumper.
This is China today, on a military issue of some importance. I don't know the right needle to thread between antagonistic towards an expansionist China and still wanting to trade with them as our economy depends on it. But, also, I am not the Defence Secretary nor the Chancellor.
Who will it be tomorrow?
The US already has aircraft carriers in the South China Sea, a Chinese billionaire this week called the Australian Governm ent anti Chinese, both Taiwan and Japan are wary of Chinese sabre rattling.
This has more to do with the increasingly nationalist Xi Government in China than Brexit
China won't want to start any hint of a trade war off with the EU though, whereas on our own... well it is our ship and our trade negotiations. So the reality is it can be bought in as a factor, however wrong or unfair or unrelated one might think that is.
6% of our exports go to China (less than to the Swiss with whom we have just completed a post Brexit trade deal), 10% of our imports come from China
Generally I am not in favour of trimming our foreign policy in order to please foreign dictators in return for trade concessions. If I haven't criticised long-standing British policy in respect to Saudi Arabia, for example, then it's not because I wasn't thinking it.
However, given that China has a population > 1 billion and an economy still growing at a rate well in excess of the global average, you would have thought that it was precisely the sort of country that would provide the post-Brexit opportunities that we are leaving the EU in order to better exploit. So it is worth pointing to this contradiction in British foreign policy.
Maybe a close trading relationship with countries that [generally] share our commitment to democratic norms is worth more than a simple reading of GDP and population numbers would suggest?
I have never supported No Deal but democratic India is more closely aligned with our values than China and now growing faster than China is
Well yes, but on our own we can't have it both ways (Warships into the South China seas & a great trading relationship) whereas in the EU actually we can to a certain degree.
FFS Parliament has already voted for Malthouse! It should be government policy already!
Does go to show though that the government (like Corbyn) can have a mind of it's own and ignore votes by Parliament where it suits itself to do so.
When did the HOC vote for Malthouse ?
ERG acting all juvenile again. I have little doubt that by the end of the month the Cooper Boles amendment will have passed and there is nothing ERG will be able to do to stop it
Any centrist Labour breakaway will perish almost immediately. It will be castigated by the media as a jejune elite project lacking real popular support.
Only electoral defeat can begin the restoration of sanity in the Labour Party.
It was the 1983 election which saw Labour on 27% under Foot only just ahead of the SDP on 25% and a Tory landslide which began the road back to the centre and away from the hard left for Labour under Kinnock which was completed under Blair
The problem was not the vote share but the demonstration that the first past the post system is brutal to emerging parties. Under most other systems, the SDP and Labour could have easily formed a coalition and booted Thatcher out after one term.
FFS Parliament has already voted for Malthouse! It should be government policy already!
Does go to show though that the government (like Corbyn) can have a mind of it's own and ignore votes by Parliament where it suits itself to do so.
When did the HOC vote for Malthouse ?
ERG acting all juvenile again. I have little doubt that by the end of the month the Cooper Boles amendment will have passed and there is nothing ERG will be able to do to stop it
When did the Commons vote through Malthouse though ? I thought that particular amendment was not selected.
Any centrist Labour breakaway will perish almost immediately. It will be castigated by the media as a jejune elite project lacking real popular support.
Only electoral defeat can begin the restoration of sanity in the Labour Party.
It was the 1983 election which saw Labour on 27% under Foot only just ahead of the SDP on 25% and a Tory landslide which began the road back to the centre and away from the hard left for Labour under Kinnock which was completed under Blair
The problem was not the vote share but the demonstration that the first past the post system is brutal to emerging parties. Under most other systems, the SDP and Labour could have easily formed a coalition and booted Thatcher out after one term.
That's right, because, having split from the Labour Party just a few years earlier, the SDP would have happily jumped straight into bed with them after an election.
I'm not sure they'd be that unhappy about publishing it, actually. It would presumably show what a shit-show No Deal would be. But crucially, in answer to "Project Fear" taunts from the ERG, TM could truthfully say that she never intended this advice to be made public, nasty HoC made her do it, but it does rather underline that they should all jolly well sign up to The Deal.
FFS Parliament has already voted for Malthouse! It should be government policy already!
Does go to show though that the government (like Corbyn) can have a mind of it's own and ignore votes by Parliament where it suits itself to do so.
When did the HOC vote for Malthouse ?
ERG acting all juvenile again. I have little doubt that by the end of the month the Cooper Boles amendment will have passed and there is nothing ERG will be able to do to stop it
When did the Commons vote through Malthouse though ? I thought that particular amendment was not selected.
I think you are right but if they weaken TM position by their actions they advance the likelihood of a BINO which is not what they want
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
Random guess Boris Johnson.
Edit: Although I bet it's a trick question and it's actually a Remainer despite sounding very Leavery.
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
Any centrist Labour breakaway will perish almost immediately. It will be castigated by the media as a jejune elite project lacking real popular support.
Only electoral defeat can begin the restoration of sanity in the Labour Party.
It was the 1983 election which saw Labour on 27% under Foot only just ahead of the SDP on 25% and a Tory landslide which began the road back to the centre and away from the hard left for Labour under Kinnock which was completed under Blair
The problem was not the vote share but the demonstration that the first past the post system is brutal to emerging parties. Under most other systems, the SDP and Labour could have easily formed a coalition and booted Thatcher out after one term.
I think that with STV with say 3-5 member constituencies there is still a seat bonus for greater shares of the vote, rather than the direct translation of votes into seats that you would get with a pure list PR system. It's quite likely that 42.4% of the vote would have been enough to give the Conservatives a small majority in 1983 - certainly there's evidence that second preferences from Alliance voters would not have gone exclusively to Labour.
For example, in the 2002 Irish general election FF gained 81 of 165 seats [49% of the seats] with 41.5% of the vote.
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
Pretty sure I remember reading that recently, so I won't give the game away entirely, but if my recollection is correct it was written by a - reluctant - admirer of Michael Gove [who unenthusiastically supports Remain].
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
Random guess Boris Johnson.
Edit: Although I bet it's a trick question and it's actually a Remainer despite sounding very Leavery.
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
That Anglicised version of the Russian word ukaz looks so ugly.
FFS Parliament has already voted for Malthouse! It should be government policy already!
Does go to show though that the government (like Corbyn) can have a mind of it's own and ignore votes by Parliament where it suits itself to do so.
When did the HOC vote for Malthouse ?
29/1 I thought?
Was not selected:
Mr Speaker
I have provisionally selected the following amendments in the following order: (a) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn; (o) in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, Mr Ian Blackford; (g) in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, Dominic Grieve; (b) in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, Yvette Cooper; (j) in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds West, Rachel Reeves; (i) in the name of the right hon. Member for Meriden, Dame Caroline Spelman; and (n) in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West, Sir Graham Brady. Reference may be made in debate to any of the amendments on the Order Paper, including those I have not selected.
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
Soros.
Well done!
The whole speech is interesting and well worth a read.
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
Random guess Boris Johnson.
Edit: Although I bet it's a trick question and it's actually a Remainer despite sounding very Leavery.
Any centrist Labour breakaway will perish almost immediately. It will be castigated by the media as a jejune elite project lacking real popular support.
Only electoral defeat can begin the restoration of sanity in the Labour Party.
It was the 1983 election which saw Labour on 27% under Foot only just ahead of the SDP on 25% and a Tory landslide which began the road back to the centre and away from the hard left for Labour under Kinnock which was completed under Blair
The problem was not the vote share but the demonstration that the first past the post system is brutal to emerging parties. Under most other systems, the SDP and Labour could have easily formed a coalition and booted Thatcher out after one term.
I think that with STV with say 3-5 member constituencies there is still a seat bonus for greater shares of the vote, rather than the direct translation of votes into seats that you would get with a pure list PR system. It's quite likely that 42.4% of the vote would have been enough to give the Conservatives a small majority in 1983 - certainly there's evidence that second preferences from Alliance voters would not have gone exclusively to Labour.
For example, in the 2002 Irish general election FF gained 81 of 165 seats [49% of the seats] with 41.5% of the vote.
But it would have been the Alliance and not the Tories that did the best from second preference transfers.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
They probably concluded that in December. And rather than faffing about as our Parliamentarians are, have been busy beefing up their No Deal preparations and reaching out to concerned British companies, as the Dutch PM told us yesterday.
Any centrist Labour breakaway will perish almost immediately. It will be castigated by the media as a jejune elite project lacking real popular support.
Only electoral defeat can begin the restoration of sanity in the Labour Party.
It was the 1983 election which saw Labour on 27% under Foot only just ahead of the SDP on 25% and a Tory landslide which began the road back to the centre and away from the hard left for Labour under Kinnock which was completed under Blair
The problem was not the vote share but the demonstration that the first past the post system is brutal to emerging parties. Under most other systems, the SDP and Labour could have easily formed a coalition and booted Thatcher out after one term.
I think that with STV with say 3-5 member constituencies there is still a seat bonus for greater shares of the vote, rather than the direct translation of votes into seats that you would get with a pure list PR system. It's quite likely that 42.4% of the vote would have been enough to give the Conservatives a small majority in 1983 - certainly there's evidence that second preferences from Alliance voters would not have gone exclusively to Labour.
For example, in the 2002 Irish general election FF gained 81 of 165 seats [49% of the seats] with 41.5% of the vote.
But it would have been the Alliance and not the Tories that did the best from second preference transfers.
Sure, but the practical effect on seat numbers would vary depending on the order in which candidates were eliminated and, in those seats where Alliance candidates were eliminated before Tory/Labour candidates there would have been enough transfers to the Tories to help them win a higher percentage of seats than their vote percentage.
Any centrist Labour breakaway will perish almost immediately. It will be castigated by the media as a jejune elite project lacking real popular support.
Only electoral defeat can begin the restoration of sanity in the Labour Party.
It was the 1983 election which saw Labour on 27% under Foot only just ahead of the SDP on 25% and a Tory landslide which began the road back to the centre and away from the hard left for Labour under Kinnock which was completed under Blair
The problem was not the vote share but the demonstration that the first past the post system is brutal to emerging parties. Under most other systems, the SDP and Labour could have easily formed a coalition and booted Thatcher out after one term.
I think that with STV with say 3-5 member constituencies there is still a seat bonus for greater shares of the vote, rather than the direct translation of votes into seats that you would get with a pure list PR system. It's quite likely that 42.4% of the vote would have been enough to give the Conservatives a small majority in 1983 - certainly there's evidence that second preferences from Alliance voters would not have gone exclusively to Labour.
For example, in the 2002 Irish general election FF gained 81 of 165 seats [49% of the seats] with 41.5% of the vote.
But it would have been the Alliance and not the Tories that did the best from second preference transfers.
Sure, but the practical effect on seat numbers would vary depending on the order in which candidates were eliminated and, in those seats where Alliance candidates were eliminated before Tory/Labour candidates there would have been enough transfers to the Tories to help them win a higher percentage of seats than their vote percentage.
But the reality of the vote distribution was that the Alliance was second to the Tories throughout most of the south and second to Labour in much of the north. In the majority of STV seats it would be the 'larger' parties being eliminated first.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
with you 100%. she's only interested in returning as her beloved new nation is about to disappear and now wants the NHS/Social Services to make sure her 3rd child gets looked after.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
Who is advocating her case to come back ? I haven't seen much sympathy about - is it someone in parliament ?
Any centrist Labour breakaway will perish almost immediately. It will be castigated by the media as a jejune elite project lacking real popular support.
Only electoral defeat can begin the restoration of sanity in the Labour Party.
It was the 1983 election which saw Labour on 27% under Foot only just ahead of the SDP on 25% and a Tory landslide which began the road back to the centre and away from the hard left for Labour under Kinnock which was completed under Blair
The problem was not the vote share but the demonstration that the first past the post system is brutal to emerging parties. Under most other systems, the SDP and Labour could have easily formed a coalition and booted Thatcher out after one term.
I think that with STV with say 3-5 member constituencies there is still a seat bonus for greater shares of the vote, rather than the direct translation of votes into seats that you would get with a pure list PR system. It's quite likely that 42.4% of the vote would have been enough to give the Conservatives a small majority in 1983 - certainly there's evidence that second preferences from Alliance voters would not have gone exclusively to Labour.
For example, in the 2002 Irish general election FF gained 81 of 165 seats [49% of the seats] with 41.5% of the vote.
But it would have been the Alliance and not the Tories that did the best from second preference transfers.
Sure, but the practical effect on seat numbers would vary depending on the order in which candidates were eliminated and, in those seats where Alliance candidates were eliminated before Tory/Labour candidates there would have been enough transfers to the Tories to help them win a higher percentage of seats than their vote percentage.
But the reality of the vote distribution was that the Alliance was second to the Tories throughout most of the south and second to Labour in much of the north. In the majority of STV seats it would be the 'larger' parties being eliminated first.
That's a good point I hadn't considered, but I still think the mathematics of STV makes it very likely that the leading party on votes outperforms its vote share in the seat share.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
Who is advocating her case to come back ? I haven't seen much sympathy about - is it someone in parliament ?
And of course this misses the main point that this woman is still totally unrepentant for her actions. Not even some sort of (fake or otherwise) attempt at claiming it was all a massive mistake. In fact, sounds even more hardcore.
Last I heard, said carrier had technical teething problems and its been moored up in Portsmouth ever since its arrival. Hopefully it is now working properly.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
I have a little bit of sympathy for letting her back, with the proviso that I'd expect her to be prosecuted for any crimes, or at least forced into some sort of programme, and have her child taken into care. I do not see her as a victim at all, and I suspect those that do would not take the same stance with a male of the same age.
People’s Vote campaign have released a new video featuring someone who claims to have voted Leave but now changed his mind to support Remain. It already has a combined 150,000 views across Facebook and Twitter. Unfortunately for them, ‘Paul from Stoke’ is actually hyper-remain political activist Paul Tomlin, who even says he’s ‘proud to be a Londoner’…
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
Who is advocating her case to come back ? I haven't seen much sympathy about - is it someone in parliament ?
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
To demonstrate we are better than ISIS and because her child is going to be an innocent British citizen that needs help.
Last I heard, said carrier had technical teething problems and its been moored up in Portsmouth ever since its arrival. Hopefully it is now working properly.
She's going on another WESTLANT deployment for more aviation trials in the spring. There is no declared operational capability yet and won't be until 2021.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
I have a little bit of sympathy for letting her back, with the proviso that I'd expect her to be prosecuted for any crimes, or at least forced into some sort of programme, and have her child taken into care. I do not see her as a victim at all, and I suspect those that do would not take the same stance with a male of the same age.
Well, yes. Why should Syria be responsible for her? Lord knows they have enough to deal with. She is not a citizen of anywhere other than UK. She was created here. Why should we foist our problems onto other nations?
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
I have a little bit of sympathy for letting her back, with the proviso that I'd expect her to be prosecuted for any crimes, or at least forced into some sort of programme, and have her child taken into care. I do not see her as a victim at all, and I suspect those that do would not take the same stance with a male of the same age.
Well, yes. Why should Syria be responsible for her? Lord knows they have enough to deal with. She is not a citizen of anywhere other than UK. She was created here. Why should we foist our problems onto other nations?
We can hear Assad's extradition request if he makes one.
Last I heard, said carrier had technical teething problems and its been moored up in Portsmouth ever since its arrival. Hopefully it is now working properly.
She's going on another WESTLANT deployment for more aviation trials in the spring. There is no declared operational capability yet and won't be until 2021.
So the news report that our "New Carrier" is China-bound is fake news?
It's worth noting that the main People's Vote campaign hasn't wanted a vote on it in Parliament yet, because they think they'd lose. Their calculation is the mirror image of May's - they think people will turn to them as a last resort.
There is a rare difference of opinion on all this between Corbyn and McDonnell. Corbyn doesn't feel strongly about membership, thinks referendums divide working-class voters, and sympathises with the MPs in Leave seats who say that a referendum will just make life horrible for them. He doesn't bother with electoral calculations much - he reckons you should do what you think right, and voters will respect it in the end. McDonnell wants to win the next election as the main priority, and is also much more of a Remainer anyway, so he's both keener on a referendum and more worried about splits.
Personally I think Labour is missing a trick in not being Remain champions - it would have a good shot at keeping on board a lot of centrist voters who are uneasy about other things, and the number of Labour voters who hate the EU more than they dislike the Tories is small. But I'm more like McDonnell in looking for electoral advantage.
I believe McDonnell takes the Varoufakis view of the EU - it is a shit-show but the best thing to do is to try and change it from within, initially by electing lots of lefty MEPs across europe.
The alternative view (to which I subscribe, and I suspect Jezza does too) is that the best approach is to try to destroy it in its current form by leaving, and being the first of several dominoes to topple until the Brussels apparatchiks wake up and do something about it.
How do you think the domino effect is working?
First one hasn't toppled yet...
Edit: If Italy leaves the Euro, that will really kick things off.
Italy's household saving rate is higher than the EU average. So there are lots of lovely Euros stashed away in savings accounts. The people who hold those accounts are not going to want them redenominated into worthless lira. So it is very unlikely that political support for leaving the Euro will be forthcoming.
That is probably true, although the downside is that the Italian economy will simply not grow for so long as it is a eurozone member. This is Italy's fourth recession since 2008.
I'm not sure they'd be that unhappy about publishing it, actually. It would presumably show what a shit-show No Deal would be. But crucially, in answer to "Project Fear" taunts from the ERG, TM could truthfully say that she never intended this advice to be made public, nasty HoC made her do it, but it does rather underline that they should all jolly well sign up to The Deal.
All looks a bit synchronised to my cynical eyes.....
Do we know how hard these "assessments" have been stress-tested? Fair chance "could" does a huge amount of heavy lifting in them....
People’s Vote campaign have released a new video featuring someone who claims to have voted Leave but now changed his mind to support Remain. It already has a combined 150,000 views across Facebook and Twitter. Unfortunately for them, ‘Paul from Stoke’ is actually hyper-remain political activist Paul Tomlin, who even says he’s ‘proud to be a Londoner’…
Last I heard, said carrier had technical teething problems and its been moored up in Portsmouth ever since its arrival. Hopefully it is now working properly.
She's going on another WESTLANT deployment for more aviation trials in the spring. There is no declared operational capability yet and won't be until 2021.
So the news report that our "New Carrier" is China-bound is fake news?
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
To demonstrate we are better than ISIS and because her child is going to be an innocent British citizen that needs help.
I suspect you're a bit of a soft touch but we don't need to demonstrate we are better than ISIS (that much is blindingly obvious to any developed mind) and we don't need to let her back into the country either.
I'm not sure they'd be that unhappy about publishing it, actually. It would presumably show what a shit-show No Deal would be. But crucially, in answer to "Project Fear" taunts from the ERG, TM could truthfully say that she never intended this advice to be made public, nasty HoC made her do it, but it does rather underline that they should all jolly well sign up to The Deal.
All looks a bit synchronised to my cynical eyes.....
Do we know how hard these "assessments" have been stress-tested? Fair chance "could" does a huge amount of heavy lifting in them....
As I understand it there are three scenarios, obvs good, med and worst. For example the press went large on the leaked ports assessment with 87% reduction in capacity at Dover. Whilst in the assessment the med was 50% and the good, everything normal. The major threat to disruption was the actions of the French.
So this could be a case of be careful what you ask for.
Electors, we are told, see themselves nowadays primarily as Leavers or Remainers rather than Labour or Tories. So a split or two would make sense - now how to arrange that?
People’s Vote campaign have released a new video featuring someone who claims to have voted Leave but now changed his mind to support Remain. It already has a combined 150,000 views across Facebook and Twitter. Unfortunately for them, ‘Paul from Stoke’ is actually hyper-remain political activist Paul Tomlin, who even says he’s ‘proud to be a Londoner’…
I've seen 2 or 3 videos along these lines now. The worst part is people like Creagh, Lammy etc will happily post them without even bother to verify them and the sort of people happy to appear in a People's Vote video are always the sort of people with a heavy social media footprint that can be traced without any effort at all.
You could of course set up a new party on the basis of a second referendum but it's hard to think of anything that would be more divisive. That's also one reason why it might work I suppose.
The problem is you need to be divisive, but in a geographically concentrated way.
Towns which have recently been told they will lose their Marks and Spencer store? All those on last week's list were in Leave areas
Leave regions not doing as well economically therefore voted for radical change
He doesn't care about centrist rebels or splits at the moment because momentum and union money will kill them off at the next election.
He wants purity - the left to have complete control of the Labour party machine and candidates. Then they will appear united which the electorate use as an indicator of competence. They then wait for the voters boredom with the Tories to exceed their fear of Labour and then the long march is over.
It would be comforting to believe the Leadership is cerebral enough to come up with such a sophisticated plan.
This month's Standpoint has an article about the background and beliefs of some of those key people around Jezza. Ex-British Communist Party of Britain types.
One thing they aint is stupid. They know what they are doing.
Well what they are doing at present is not smart. They are missing the biggest open goal in the Party's history. They can't do anything without power, and they have a golden opportunity to snatch it. They're not taking it.
To me, that's stupid.
You’re thinking too short term
At the moment the right of Labour has not been purged so could reassert itself.
Any centrist Labour breakaway will perish almost immediately. It will be castigated by the media as a jejune elite project lacking real popular support.
Only electoral defeat can begin the restoration of sanity in the Labour Party.
When you say "the media" - I'm pretty sure only the Guardian knows of the term "jejune"!
You could of course set up a new party on the basis of a second referendum but it's hard to think of anything that would be more divisive. That's also one reason why it might work I suppose.
The problem is you need to be divisive, but in a geographically concentrated way.
Towns which have recently been told they will lose their Marks and Spencer store? All those on last week's list were in Leave areas
Leave regions not doing as well economically therefore voted for radical change
The correlation between economic deprivation and voting leave is weak. There's a much stronger correlation between economic deprivation and voting Labour, but I doubt you'd use that as a moral argument for hard-left government.
You could of course set up a new party on the basis of a second referendum but it's hard to think of anything that would be more divisive. That's also one reason why it might work I suppose.
The problem is you need to be divisive, but in a geographically concentrated way.
Towns which have recently been told they will lose their Marks and Spencer store? All those on last week's list were in Leave areas
Leave regions not doing as well economically therefore voted for radical change
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
To demonstrate we are better than ISIS and because her child is going to be an innocent British citizen that needs help.
I suspect you're a bit of a soft touch but we don't need to demonstrate we are better than ISIS (that much is blindingly obvious to any developed mind) and we don't need to let her back into the country either.
The child is only likely to be a British citizen if born in the UK I think. The rules are quite complex.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
Who is advocating her case to come back ? I haven't seen much sympathy about - is it someone in parliament ?
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
If she has committed crimes then she should be brought to justice, not ignored and forgotten. Her child (British citizen) also obviously is blameless in all this.
From a purely pragmatic perspective, if she can be/is de-radicalised then she could provide useful information and even be a valuable influencer to reduce the risk of other people doing the same.
If not - well frankly I'd rather have her in a British prison than a Syrian refugee camp. We should be a nation of laws and should honour commitments to our citizens.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
I have a little bit of sympathy for letting her back, with the proviso that I'd expect her to be prosecuted for any crimes, or at least forced into some sort of programme, and have her child taken into care. I do not see her as a victim at all, and I suspect those that do would not take the same stance with a male of the same age.
Well, yes. Why should Syria be responsible for her? Lord knows they have enough to deal with. She is not a citizen of anywhere other than UK. She was created here. Why should we foist our problems onto other nations?
Because of her own free will she chose to join an organisation that the U.K. was opposed to and fighting.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
To demonstrate we are better than ISIS and because her child is going to be an innocent British citizen that needs help.
I suspect you're a bit of a soft touch but we don't need to demonstrate we are better than ISIS (that much is blindingly obvious to any developed mind) and we don't need to let her back into the country either.
The child is only likely to be a British citizen if born in the UK I think. The rules are quite complex.
I don't think so.
"if your child was not born in the UK but either parent was a British citizen before the child was born (i.e. they were born in the UK or have registered or naturalised as a British citizen), your child was automatically born a British citizen by descent."
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
Who is advocating her case to come back ? I haven't seen much sympathy about - is it someone in parliament ?
And of course this misses the main point that this woman is still totally unrepentant for her actions. Not even some sort of (fake or otherwise) attempt at claiming it was all a massive mistake. In fact, sounds even more hardcore.
She's a British citizen brainwashed as a child into a death cult and used as a breeder for more Jihadis. Where the fuck is your compassion?* You think somebody immersed in that for years is 'deprogrammed' overnight?
* "your" plural, Francis, it's not aimed solely at you
You could of course set up a new party on the basis of a second referendum but it's hard to think of anything that would be more divisive. That's also one reason why it might work I suppose.
The problem is you need to be divisive, but in a geographically concentrated way.
Towns which have recently been told they will lose their Marks and Spencer store? All those on last week's list were in Leave areas
Leave regions not doing as well economically therefore voted for radical change
The correlation between economic deprivation and voting leave is weak. There's a much stronger correlation between economic deprivation and voting Labour, but I doubt you'd use that as a moral argument for hard-left government.
The only argument I’m using is that I suspect m&s closed stores that were not doing well.
These are likely to be disproportionately outside the large metropolitan areas
Any centrist Labour breakaway will perish almost immediately. It will be castigated by the media as a jejune elite project lacking real popular support.
Only electoral defeat can begin the restoration of sanity in the Labour Party.
It was the 1983 election which saw Labour on 27% under Foot only just ahead of the SDP on 25% and a Tory landslide which began the road back to the centre and away from the hard left for Labour under Kinnock which was completed under Blair
The problem was not the vote share but the demonstration that the first past the post system is brutal to emerging parties. Under most other systems, the SDP and Labour could have easily formed a coalition and booted Thatcher out after one term.
I think that with STV with say 3-5 member constituencies there is still a seat bonus for greater shares of the vote, rather than the direct translation of votes into seats that you would get with a pure list PR system. It's quite likely that 42.4% of the vote would have been enough to give the Conservatives a small majority in 1983 - certainly there's evidence that second preferences from Alliance voters would not have gone exclusively to Labour.
For example, in the 2002 Irish general election FF gained 81 of 165 seats [49% of the seats] with 41.5% of the vote.
But it would have been the Alliance and not the Tories that did the best from second preference transfers.
Sure, but the practical effect on seat numbers would vary depending on the order in which candidates were eliminated and, in those seats where Alliance candidates were eliminated before Tory/Labour candidates there would have been enough transfers to the Tories to help them win a higher percentage of seats than their vote percentage.
And in one indecipherable sentence, the case against multi-member STV is made, and rests.
I think it's fair of McD to highlight it. I knew little about Churchill until recently (other than the nationalist billboard version). It's interesting and useful to discuss and debate another side to him. I really don't understand the problem here.
I think it's fair of McD to highlight it. I knew little about Churchill until recently (other than the nationalist billboard version). It's interesting and useful to discuss and debate another side to him. I really don't understand the problem here.
His original comment was:
"Villain - Tonypandy"
In other words attempting the same black and white analysis which those on the opposite end of the spectrum would make.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
I have a little bit of sympathy for letting her back, with the proviso that I'd expect her to be prosecuted for any crimes, or at least forced into some sort of programme, and have her child taken into care. I do not see her as a victim at all, and I suspect those that do would not take the same stance with a male of the same age.
Well, yes. Why should Syria be responsible for her? Lord knows they have enough to deal with. She is not a citizen of anywhere other than UK. She was created here. Why should we foist our problems onto other nations?
Because of her own free will she chose to join an organisation that the U.K. was opposed to and fighting.
Comments
Does go to show though that the government (like Corbyn) can have a mind of it's own and ignore votes by Parliament where it suits itself to do so.
However, given that China has a population > 1 billion and an economy still growing at a rate well in excess of the global average, you would have thought that it was precisely the sort of country that would provide the post-Brexit opportunities that we are leaving the EU in order to better exploit. So it is worth pointing to this contradiction in British foreign policy.
Maybe a close trading relationship with countries that [generally] share our commitment to democratic norms is worth more than a simple reading of GDP and population numbers would suggest?
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1096023186637049858
I have sailed from Japan v Korea and onto China through the South China Sea and the area is vast and highly political; we do not need to get involved at all
Q3 = -0.2%
Q4 = 0.0%
What a malaise Europe finds itself in.
A bonus point if you can name the person.
(And no cheating!)
"One can still make a case for preserving the EU in order radically to reinvent it. But that would require a change of heart in the EU. The current leadership is reminiscent of the politburo when the Soviet Union collapsed — continuing to issue ukases [edicts] as if they were still relevant.”
Edit: Although I bet it's a trick question and it's actually a Remainer despite sounding very Leavery.
For example, in the 2002 Irish general election FF gained 81 of 165 seats [49% of the seats] with 41.5% of the vote.
Sorry, no.
I'll come back later and let you know.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1096029621395558400
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1096008949113991168
Mr Speaker
I have provisionally selected the following amendments in the following order: (a) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn; (o) in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, Mr Ian Blackford; (g) in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, Dominic Grieve; (b) in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, Yvette Cooper; (j) in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds West, Rachel Reeves; (i) in the name of the right hon. Member for Meriden, Dame Caroline Spelman; and (n) in the name of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West, Sir Graham Brady. Reference may be made in debate to any of the amendments on the Order Paper, including those I have not selected.
It's not often that I'm grateful for FPTP, but in this case I am.
The whole speech is interesting and well worth a read.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
Just want to say I think Mike's aid it pretty well there...
Oh... here we go, found the bleeding Heartman
https://twitter.com/HarrietHarman/status/1096027825470169088
People’s Vote campaign have released a new video featuring someone who claims to have voted Leave but now changed his mind to support Remain. It already has a combined 150,000 views across Facebook and Twitter. Unfortunately for them, ‘Paul from Stoke’ is actually hyper-remain political activist Paul Tomlin, who even says he’s ‘proud to be a Londoner’…
https://order-order.com/2019/02/14/peoples-votes-bregret-poster-boy-actually-voted-remain/
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/429961-more-nj-residents-say-booker-would-not-make-a-good-president-poll
Do we know how hard these "assessments" have been stress-tested? Fair chance "could" does a huge amount of heavy lifting in them....
https://twitter.com/MaryCreaghMP/status/1095806732943720448
So this could be a case of be careful what you ask for.
We are right to defend our friends and allies against the local bully
If that has a cost then so be it
None of this is to argue that Williamson is not a prat of the highest order
At the moment the right of Labour has not been purged so could reassert itself.
It was a Freelander....
From a purely pragmatic perspective, if she can be/is de-radicalised then she could provide useful information and even be a valuable influencer to reduce the risk of other people doing the same.
If not - well frankly I'd rather have her in a British prison than a Syrian refugee camp. We should be a nation of laws and should honour commitments to our citizens.
Choices have consequences.
"if your child was not born in the UK but either parent was a British citizen before the child was born (i.e. they were born in the UK or have registered or naturalised as a British citizen), your child was automatically born a British citizen by descent."
https://www.gherson.com/blog/your-child-british-citizen
* "your" plural, Francis, it's not aimed solely at you
These are likely to be disproportionately outside the large metropolitan areas
That’s all...
"Villain - Tonypandy"
In other words attempting the same black and white analysis which those on the opposite end of the spectrum would make.
and...
https://twitter.com/singharj/status/1096052840064258054
OECD gives Germany as
Q3 = +0.3%
Q4 = +0.3%
https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=350
The German figure for Q4 came out today, not surprised the OECD haven't added it yet.