He does. He wants marriage to be illegal for legal relationships he views as immoral.
The law already discriminates between relationship types, that is why marriage between relatives/marriage between more than two people is illegal.
No. Incest is illegal due to birth defects etc which causes harm, not due to morals.
Isn't the common retort amongst those who support gay marriage that marriage isn't just about procreation? So why are you using it now?
Incest is illegal full stop. With or without marriage. You are comparing an illegal relationship for a legal one for some bizarre reason to justify trying to enforce your "morals" as law.
Tyranny of the majority is not ok. Taking away the liberties of others is not acceptable.
People can campaign to get the law changed for whatever they want in my opinion. I don’t see what you mean by ‘entitled’. No one is entitled to change any law
I disagree. Taking away fundamental liberties from others isn't acceptable even if it is the will of the majority IMO.
If a majority wanted to ban interracial marriage should that be OK? If a majority wanted to take away women's rights to vote should that be OK? If a majority wanted to take away the right to vote from Norhtern Ireland should that be OK?
The answer to all to me is absolutely not under any circumstances.
This back stop. I don't understand all the fuss about it. Apparently there is a technological solution to the Irish border that means we won't need one. Gove et al keep talking about it. So with technology there will be no border and thus no back stop.
So why are the people who insist technology is the fix insist the back stop must go? Is it because they know they are lying about the technology solution?
That's correct, the actual long-term goal is to put the border between the British Isles and the EU. The original thought was that there would be a domino effect and the Irish would leave the EU as well, but failing that you can try to get the same thing by stealth as the UK gradually diverges. This plan isn't going as well as originally hoped, because the EU don't have cornflakes for brains.
However, if you were to assume good faith, you could say that the Brexit enthusiasts are concerned that the EU side are using the Irish situation as a pretext to prevent the UK from setting its own rules, and that they won't agree to the technological solution even though it's really great and totally works.
I wonder if he is from one of the remaining Orange Lodge families, they still exist in Liverpool but I would have thought that was dying out. He clearly follows most of the DUP line in politics. He probably marches with the pipes and drums to celebrate the battle of the Boyne each year.
When people say they want diversity in politics/life in general, what do they mean?
Yes unless that diversity seeks to prevent others having their diversity.
I think the truth is that people who claim to want a diverse society actually want a conformist society but don’t like to think of themselves as authoritarian. True diversity means accepting that views like those of @Viceroy_of_Orange are part and parcel of society and don’t need to be put under the microscope or corrected. If we all have to think the same, then we aren’t diverse
Viceroy has the right to hold whatever views he wants.
He shouldn't have the right to take liberties away from others.
He hasn’t got that right, who says he has?
What a weird question, considering that same-sex marriage is not recognised in Northern Ireland.
It's not a question of discussing whether people have the right to take away liberties from others. The liberties don't exist. They are already being taken away.
Diversity of rights no. If I as a Dawkins style atheist say I think organised religion is immoral and that marriage between two religious people should be illegal then am I entitled to get the law changed to reflect that?
Tyranny of the majority is not ok. Taking away the liberties of others is not acceptable.
People can campaign to get the law changed for whatever they want in my opinion. I don’t see what you mean by ‘entitled’. No one is entitled to change any law
I agree that campaigning for change in a law is a perfectly legitimate activity. But Philip is surely right that some individual liberties should have protection against arbitrary decisions by 51% of the electorate. For example, I don't think that it should be *possible* to pass a law to imprison anyone called "isam" - clearly it's undesirable, but it should in fact be regarded as an inadmissible infringement of rights. In other words, democracy needs to be qualified by a charter of rights which should be difficult to overturn.
The risk of violence is bad. The taking away of fundamental liberties (the right to elect your government) is worse.
I am a classical liberal. The backstop is illiberal.
The backstop is the prioritisation of the right of the larger GB to diverge from the EU over the right of the smaller NI not to be destabilised.
It is ultimately a choice.
No it is not. It is taking away the right of NI voters to vote on making their own choices.
If at periodical elections the voters of NI elect an executive that chooses to keep their laws aligned with EU laws that would be their choice. That would be democratic.
I wonder if he is from one of the remaining Orange Lodge families, they still exist in Liverpool but I would have thought that was dying out. He clearly follows most of the DUP line in politics. He probably marches with the pipes and drums to celebrate the battle of the Boyne each year.
When people say they want diversity in politics/life in general, what do they mean?
Yes unless that diversity seeks to prevent others having their diversity.
I think the truth is that people who claim to want a diverse society actually want a conformist society but don’t like to think of themselves as authoritarian. True diversity means accepting that views like those of @Viceroy_of_Orange are part and parcel of society and don’t need to be put under the microscope or corrected. If we all have to think the same, then we aren’t diverse
Viceroy has the right to hold whatever views he wants.
He shouldn't have the right to take liberties away from others.
He hasn’t got that right, who says he has?
What a weird question, considering that same-sex marriage is not recognised in Northern Ireland.
It's not a question of discussing whether people have the right to take away liberties from others. The liberties don't exist. They are already being taken away.
Tyranny of the majority is not ok. Taking away the liberties of others is not acceptable.
People can campaign to get the law changed for whatever they want in my opinion. I don’t see what you mean by ‘entitled’. No one is entitled to change any law
I disagree. Taking away fundamental liberties from others isn't acceptable even if it is the will of the majority IMO.
If a majority wanted to ban interracial marriage should that be OK? If a majority wanted to take away women's rights to vote should that be OK? If a majority wanted to take away the right to vote from Norhtern Ireland should that be OK?
The answer to all to me is absolutely not under any circumstances.
I saw the right to travel and work in Europe without restriction as a fundamental liberty. The will of the micro-majority is removing that. Your outrage is selective.
I wonder if he is from one of the remaining Orange Lodge families, they still exist in Liverpool but I would have thought that was dying out. He clearly follows most of the DUP line in politics. He probably marches with the pipes and drums to celebrate the battle of the Boyne each year.
When people say they want diversity in politics/life in general, what do they mean?
Yes unless that diversity seeks to prevent others having their diversity.
I think the truth is that people who claim to want a diverse society actually want a conformist society but don’t like to think of themselves as authoritarian. True diversity means accepting that views like those of @Viceroy_of_Orange are part and parcel of society and don’t need to be put under the microscope or corrected. If we all have to think the same, then we aren’t diverse
Viceroy has the right to hold whatever views he wants.
He shouldn't have the right to take liberties away from others.
He hasn’t got that right, who says he has?
What a weird question, considering that same-sex marriage is not recognised in Northern Ireland.
It's not a question of discussing whether people have the right to take away liberties from others. The liberties don't exist. They are already being taken away.
Do you view that as acceptable? I don't.
No, I don't.
The point I'm making is that we're not talking about the right of some oddball to argue for a hypothetical withdrawal of rights.
We're talking about a situation in which, by law, rights are already being withheld.
That ES editorial reads as though GO is playing BB for the lazy, duplicitous, solipsistic git he is - I will be the (eg Northern) power(house) behind the throne is how it seems to have been written.
Who is BB?
Denys Watkins-Pitchford
I had a library card at age four (you weren't supposed to have one until seven). The Little Grey Men was the first book I took out of the library.
Did they grow up to become the Little Men in Grey?
The risk of violence is bad. The taking away of fundamental liberties (the right to elect your government) is worse.
I am a classical liberal. The backstop is illiberal.
The backstop is the prioritisation of the right of the larger GB to diverge from the EU over the right of the smaller NI not to be destabilised.
It is ultimately a choice.
No it is not. It is taking away the right of NI voters to vote on making their own choices.
If at periodical elections the voters of NI elect an executive that chooses to keep their laws aligned with EU laws that would be their choice. That would be democratic.
Not so because there needs to be a treaty between the UK and the EU for that alignment to work. The proposed treaty gives the UK the choice whether to prioritise GB divergence from the EU or divergence from Northern Ireland. The latter will antagonise the Unionist community. The EU is not offering Northern Ireland divergence from Ireland because that will destabilise whole Ireland. We do have a choice of going ahead on that basis, but with a No Deal.
Is Boris really going to go for an early election. I doubt it. Why get his dream and then throw it away after a few weeks?
No. He will let his friends in the ERG down and organize an extension.
I doubt it, too, and am surprised at all the PB’ers who seem to think he will. Not only has he said, several times, that he won’t (which isn’t worth that much tbf), he’s playing everything safety first with no sign of being a bold decisive politician, his MPs don’t want it, and he isn’t going to risk losing his life’s dream so quickly.
The circumstance of GE is if Boris doesn’t become PM because his government is taken down by defections and/or a VONC immediately after the election.
Tyranny of the majority is not ok. Taking away the liberties of others is not acceptable.
People can campaign to get the law changed for whatever they want in my opinion. I don’t see what you mean by ‘entitled’. No one is entitled to change any law
I disagree. Taking away fundamental liberties from others isn't acceptable even if it is the will of the majority IMO.
If a majority wanted to ban interracial marriage should that be OK? If a majority wanted to take away women's rights to vote should that be OK? If a majority wanted to take away the right to vote from Norhtern Ireland should that be OK?
The answer to all to me is absolutely not under any circumstances.
I saw the right to travel and work in Europe without restriction as a fundamental liberty. The will of the micro-majority is removing that. Your outrage is selective.
Can you travel and work in American without restriction? Or Australia? Or Canada? Or India?
The right to travel and work is nice to have (and I liked it too) but it is not and never has been a fundamental human right. Not like the right to vote or get married.
The law has nothing to do with morals. Morals are a matter for individuals not the law.
Of course the law is shaped on our morals as a society. Unless you're advocating a Ron Paul type society, which wouldn't be a completely bad thing, then it is a battle to define what those morals are.
And TSE, in the closet? Quite the opposite.
Presumably you also think adultery is immoral, what with it being against one of the Ten Commandments.
Pre Boris I would expect the LDs to win the seat as like Peterborough the Brexit Party will split the Tory vote in this Leave voting seat.
However if Boris does indeed win the Tory leadership and become PM just before the by election then I think the Tories could hold it by winning back Brexit Party voters and if they have a local farmer as the candidate
Remember that in a Tory vs LD contest, the Tories would need to win 2 Leavers from TBP to make up for every Remainer they lose to LD
Reading AEP (I know, I know) this morning in the telegraph to an extent I can see why. Yes things are deteriorating but announcing your plans before anyone does isn't the best plan - especially when the BoE has a lot more to worry about than anyone else...
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
Is Boris really going to go for an early election. I doubt it. Why get his dream and then throw it away after a few weeks?
No. He will let his friends in the ERG down and organize an extension.
I doubt it, too, and am surprised at all the PB’ers who seem to think he will. Not only has he said, several times, that he won’t (which isn’t worth that much tbf), he’s playing everything safety first with no sign of being a bold decisive politician, his MPs don’t want it, and he isn’t going to risk losing his life’s dream so quickly.
The circumstance of GE is if Boris doesn’t become PM because his government is taken down by defections and/or a VONC immediately after the election.
Yes. I agree. I still think there's a chance he wont make it.
He does. He wants marriage to be illegal for legal relationships he views as immoral.
The law already discriminates between relationship types, that is why marriage between relatives/marriage between more than two people is illegal.
No. Incest is illegal due to birth defects etc which causes harm, not due to morals.
Incest has been banned for centuries. It was why banns of marriage were read in church to ensure the resident experts ensured it didn't accidently occur...
Is Boris really going to go for an early election. I doubt it. Why get his dream and then throw it away after a few weeks?
No. He will let his friends in the ERG down and organize an extension.
I doubt it, too, and am surprised at all the PB’ers who seem to think he will. Not only has he said, several times, that he won’t (which isn’t worth that much tbf), he’s playing everything safety first with no sign of being a bold decisive politician, his MPs don’t want it, and he isn’t going to risk losing his life’s dream so quickly.
The circumstance of GE is if Boris doesn’t become PM because his government is taken down by defections and/or a VONC immediately after the election.
Yes. I agree. I still think there's a chance he wont make it.
If Tory MPs were going to defect before he had a chance to become PM, why wouldn't they make that threat now?
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
The actual long-term goal is to put the border between the British Isles and the EU. The original thought was that there would be a domino effect and the Irish would leave the EU as well, but failing that you can try to get the same thing by stealth as the UK gradually diverges. This plan isn't going as well as originally hoped, because the EU don't have cornflakes for brains. [....] .
Absolutely correct. The Irish are making a fuss about the border, because it's a big problem for them, and not just because they are unreasonable. It's an even bigger problem for the Northern Irish, but no-one in.GB cares two hoots about them.
GB can avoid dealing with its Brexit contradiction of maintaining the status quo in NI and being able to diverge from the EU if Ireland follows the UK in that divergence
This is the real issue. Ireland doesn't see why it should fall in line with the UK. It didn't ask for Brexit and it thinks the EU gives it leverage over a UK weakened by Brexit. At the same time it worries that other EU member states might do a deal with the UK that sees Ireland isolated. That's why it is taking a very hard line on the border. Tactically it might be better to let events play out and then when the UK is in its new subordinate position relative to the EU, turn the screws
The fact that Tory MPs are having to hand their phones in before voting in order to prove they haven't taken photos of the ballot papers is a bit depressing from the point of view of honesty. Whatever happened to trusting people to do the right thing?
Like not snorting cocaine whilst ruining the lives of teachers who snort cocaine? That kind of right thing?
Is Boris really going to go for an early election. I doubt it. Why get his dream and then throw it away after a few weeks?
No. He will let his friends in the ERG down and organize an extension.
I think so. They will wish they had backed Raab.
Perhaps Labour can force an election at the point at which it becomes clear that Johnson is ratting on Hard Brexit. But since that would be suicide for the Tories it will be difficult.
My prediction is no election, no referendum, the Withdrawal Agreement passed in 2020.
Tyranny of the majority is not ok. Taking away the liberties of others is not acceptable.
People can campaign to get the law changed for whatever they want in my opinion. I don’t see what you mean by ‘entitled’. No one is entitled to change any law
I disagree. Taking away fundamental liberties from others isn't acceptable even if it is the will of the majority IMO.
If a majority wanted to ban interracial marriage should that be OK? If a majority wanted to take away women's rights to vote should that be OK? If a majority wanted to take away the right to vote from Norhtern Ireland should that be OK?
The answer to all to me is absolutely not under any circumstances.
I saw the right to travel and work in Europe without restriction as a fundamental liberty. The will of the micro-majority is removing that. Your outrage is selective.
I think it's legitimate for countries to impose controls on migration.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
All MPs elected in 2017 pledging to implement Brexit but then refusing to do so should be subject to recall. After all, what is that if not a fraud on the voters?
Take it a step further - recall all MPs simultaneously and you have a do-it-yourself general election.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
This is an interesting (ie I agree with it) article in the Guardian enumerating the reasons why Trump will win re-election unless the Democrats suddenly get their arses in gear.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
Schutzenfest - theyll all be getting hammered for the next 5 days
More than at Oktoberfest?
Oktoberfest is for tourists
The real hammerings happen in the towns and villages over the summer and the big Rhineland Cities in the run up to Lent.
Well as a good Muslim boy Oktoberfest was wasted on me.
I'm off to Stuttgart next month, any places I should visit?
depends what you like and how long you are staying
the centre still has some old bits we didnt blow the crap out of and there are lots of museums
but if you have time there are better things outside the city within about an hours drive - Black Forest, Spa towns, Rothenburg
Four days and cheers.
Good to know that the best bit of Stuttgart seems to be leaving it!
Think of Dungannon with lots of car factories
I loved Stuttgart when I worked there for over a year in the eighties. The Staatsgalerie is worth visiting for the architecture as well as the art. It's a Spa town, I liked Das Leuze best for a swim. There's the Mercedes factory at UnterTurkheim and Porsche at Zuffenhausen if you like cars. There's a long park parallel to the main shopping street and beyond which includes the Opera House. Sorry if the info is out of date!
No not at all
personally I prefer the country to the City.
There are lots of things to do in Stuttgart, but being a yokel I appreciated the surrounding countryside more
each to his own of course.
On a four day visit there's not a huge amount of time to get out into the countryside, but I did any number of trips once I'd bought a little Opel. Tubingen is a nice university town south of Stuttgart, with Hohenzollern castle further to the south and the Black Forest is to the east. Stuttgart is quite leafy for a city and there are vineyards in the surrounding hills.
Sky News trying to get a conspiracy theory going about whips rigging votes....then shot down by 3 different Tory MPs telling them they have got how the proxy vote process works wrong...embarrassing.
Not much point in making a prediction this time, because the positions will depend on tactical voting and there's no sensible way of trying to forecast how that will turn out.
Tyranny of the majority is not ok. Taking away the liberties of others is not acceptable.
People can campaign to get the law changed for whatever they want in my opinion. I don’t see what you mean by ‘entitled’. No one is entitled to change any law
I disagree. Taking away fundamental liberties from others isn't acceptable even if it is the will of the majority IMO.
If a majority wanted to ban interracial marriage should that be OK? If a majority wanted to take away women's rights to vote should that be OK? If a majority wanted to take away the right to vote from Norhtern Ireland should that be OK?
The answer to all to me is absolutely not under any circumstances.
I saw the right to travel and work in Europe without restriction as a fundamental liberty. The will of the micro-majority is removing that. Your outrage is selective.
Can you travel and work in American without restriction? Or Australia? Or Canada? Or India?
The right to travel and work is nice to have (and I liked it too) but it is not and never has been a fundamental human right. Not like the right to vote or get married.
Brexiters like taking away people's rights. It gives them a cheap thrill. I suspect you also believe other rights are "nice to haves" that you would happily sacrifice, along with the Union, and people's businesses, jobs and even lives so you can have your beloved Brexit. Go on, don't be like Boris, tell the truth and admit it, everything is up for grabs to get Brexit!
The risk of violence is bad. The taking away of fundamental liberties (the right to elect your government) is worse.
I am a classical liberal. The backstop is illiberal.
The backstop is the prioritisation of the right of the larger GB to diverge from the EU over the right of the smaller NI not to be destabilised.
It is ultimately a choice.
No it is not. It is taking away the right of NI voters to vote on making their own choices.
If at periodical elections the voters of NI elect an executive that chooses to keep their laws aligned with EU laws that would be their choice. That would be democratic.
Not so because there needs to be a treaty between the UK and the EU for that alignment to work. The proposed treaty gives the UK the choice whether to prioritise GB divergence from the EU or divergence from Northern Ireland. The latter will antagonise the Unionist community. The EU is not offering Northern Ireland divergence from Ireland because that will destabilise whole Ireland. We do have a choice of going ahead on that basis, but with a No Deal.
Which is why unless the abhorrent backstop gets dropped the ONLY democratic decision is with regret no deal.
The voters of NI either must have the right to vote on EU laws or the right to diverge. Having to follow laws but having no right to diverge is colonialism and is undemocratic.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
That ES editorial reads as though GO is playing BB for the lazy, duplicitous, solipsistic git he is - I will be the (eg Northern) power(house) behind the throne is how it seems to have been written.
Who is BB?
Brian Butterfield. The type of thrusting entrepreneur who makes up the modern Tory party membership.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
Tyranny of the majority is not ok. Taking away the liberties of others is not acceptable.
People can campaign to get the law changed for whatever they want in my opinion. I don’t see what you mean by ‘entitled’. No one is entitled to change any law
I disagree. Taking away fundamental liberties from others isn't acceptable even if it is the will of the majority IMO.
If a majority wanted to ban interracial marriage should that be OK? If a majority wanted to take away women's rights to vote should that be OK? If a majority wanted to take away the right to vote from Norhtern Ireland should that be OK?
The answer to all to me is absolutely not under any circumstances.
I saw the right to travel and work in Europe without restriction as a fundamental liberty. The will of the micro-majority is removing that. Your outrage is selective.
Can you travel and work in American without restriction? Or Australia? Or Canada? Or India?
The right to travel and work is nice to have (and I liked it too) but it is not and never has been a fundamental human right. Not like the right to vote or get married.
Brexiters like taking away people's rights. It gives them a cheap thrill. I suspect you also believe other rights are "nice to haves" that you would happily sacrifice, along with the Union, and people's businesses, jobs and even lives so you can have your beloved Brexit. Go on, don't be like Boris, tell the truth and admit it, everything is up for grabs to get Brexit!
Everything is up for grabs to honour democracy yes.
Democracy is more important than the risk of violence or economic hardship.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
The risk of violence is bad. The taking away of fundamental liberties (the right to elect your government) is worse.
I am a classical liberal. The backstop is illiberal.
The backstop is the prioritisation of the right of the larger GB to diverge from the EU over the right of the smaller NI not to be destabilised.
It is ultimately a choice.
No it is not. It is taking away the right of NI voters to vote on making their own choices.
If at periodical elections the voters of NI elect an executive that chooses to keep their laws aligned with EU laws that would be their choice. That would be democratic.
Not so because there needs to be a treaty between the UK and the EU for that alignment to work. The proposed treaty gives the UK the choice whether to prioritise GB divergence from the EU or divergence from Northern Ireland. The latter will antagonise the Unionist community. The EU is not offering Northern Ireland divergence from Ireland because that will destabilise whole Ireland. We do have a choice of going ahead on that basis, but with a No Deal.
Which is why unless the abhorrent backstop gets dropped the ONLY democratic decision is with regret no deal.
The voters of NI either must have the right to vote on EU laws or the right to diverge. Having to follow laws but having no right to diverge is colonialism and is undemocratic.
You have just made that choice without reference to the people of Northern Ireland in whose name you were claiming a democratic right to decide.
At a former workplace we had a running joke - by mixing up 'working at the forefront of science' and 'pushing back the frontiers of science' we said that we were "pushing back the foreskin of science".
The law has nothing to do with morals. Morals are a matter for individuals not the law.
Of course the law is shaped on our morals as a society. Unless you're advocating a Ron Paul type society, which wouldn't be a completely bad thing, then it is a battle to define what those morals are.
And TSE, in the closet? Quite the opposite.
Presumably you also think adultery is immoral, what with it being against one of the Ten Commandments.
Would you make that illegal / criminal as well?
Also suicide. Which actually was illegal until the Suicide Act 1961. Prior to that unsuccessful suicides were convicted and imprisoned. We think that modern mores are typical of history, whereas they are quite exceptional
Andrew Neil on BBC2 "Politics Today" skewers the Boris renegotiation plan completely. Car crash tv.
Neil should chair the final two debate .... please ....
That skewering is why Andrew Neil will not be chairing any debate...
Neil is the best political interviewer the BBC have, despite being right learning, he appears to like nothing more than skewering bullshitters of all colours. Sad the BBC marginalise him in preference to second rate talent.
The risk of violence is bad. The taking away of fundamental liberties (the right to elect your government) is worse.
I am a classical liberal. The backstop is illiberal.
The backstop is the prioritisation of the right of the larger GB to diverge from the EU over the right of the smaller NI not to be destabilised.
It is ultimately a choice.
No it is not. It is taking away the right of NI voters to vote on making their own choices.
If at periodical elections the voters of NI elect an executive that chooses to keep their laws aligned with EU laws that would be their choice. That would be democratic.
Not so because there needs to be a treaty between the UK and the EU for that alignment to work. The proposed treaty gives the UK the choice whether to prioritise GB divergence from the EU or divergence from Northern Ireland. The latter will antagonise the Unionist community. The EU is not offering Northern Ireland divergence from Ireland because that will destabilise whole Ireland. We do have a choice of going ahead on that basis, but with a No Deal.
Which is why unless the abhorrent backstop gets dropped the ONLY democratic decision is with regret no deal.
The voters of NI either must have the right to vote on EU laws or the right to diverge. Having to follow laws but having no right to diverge is colonialism and is undemocratic.
You have just made that choice without reference to the people of Northern Ireland in whose name you were claiming a democratic right to decide.
Absolutely!
A sectarian majority of NI voters has no right to disenfranchise their compatriots.
If all NI voters get regular elections to shape their laws and they continuously elect people who choose to keep the laws aligned then that is their choice.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
The actual long-term goal is to put the border between the British Isles and the EU. The original thought was that there would be a domino effect and the Irish would leave the EU as well, but failing that you can try to get the same thing by stealth as the UK gradually diverges. This plan isn't going as well as originally hoped, because the EU don't have cornflakes for brains. [....] .
Absolutely correct. The Irish are making a fuss about the border, because it's a big problem for them, and not just because they are unreasonable. It's an even bigger problem for the Northern Irish, but no-one in.GB cares two hoots about them.
GB can avoid dealing with its Brexit contradiction of maintaining the status quo in NI and being able to diverge from the EU if Ireland follows the UK in that divergence
This is the real issue. Ireland doesn't see why it should fall in line with the UK. It didn't ask for Brexit and it thinks the EU gives it leverage over a UK weakened by Brexit. At the same time it worries that other EU member states might do a deal with the UK that sees Ireland isolated. That's why it is taking a very hard line on the border. Tactically it might be better to let events play out and then when the UK is in its new subordinate position relative to the EU, turn the screws
I made similar points repeatedly before the ref...
Diversity of rights no. If I as a Dawkins style atheist say I think organised religion is immoral and that marriage between two religious people should be illegal then am I entitled to get the law changed to reflect that?
Tyranny of the majority is not ok. Taking away the liberties of others is not acceptable.
People can campaign to get the law changed for whatever they want in my opinion. I don’t see what you mean by ‘entitled’. No one is entitled to change any law
I agree that campaigning for change in a law is a perfectly legitimate activity. But Philip is surely right that some individual liberties should have protection against arbitrary decisions by 51% of the electorate. For example, I don't think that it should be *possible* to pass a law to imprison anyone called "isam" - clearly it's undesirable, but it should in fact be regarded as an inadmissible infringement of rights. In other words, democracy needs to be qualified by a charter of rights which should be difficult to overturn.
Well if we had an elected govt that held a referendum on it that was supported by the HofC, and 51% said I should be imprisoned I guess I’d have to say it was legit. It just wouldn’t happen though.
Pre Boris I would expect the LDs to win the seat as like Peterborough the Brexit Party will split the Tory vote in this Leave voting seat.
However if Boris does indeed win the Tory leadership and become PM just before the by election then I think the Tories could hold it by winning back Brexit Party voters and if they have a local farmer as the candidate
Remember that in a Tory vs LD contest, the Tories would need to win 2 Leavers from TBP to make up for every Remainer they lose to LD
Which they would do under Boris, TBP and the Tories won well over 50% in Powys combined at the European elections
The law has nothing to do with morals. Morals are a matter for individuals not the law.
Of course the law is shaped on our morals as a society. Unless you're advocating a Ron Paul type society, which wouldn't be a completely bad thing, then it is a battle to define what those morals are.
And TSE, in the closet? Quite the opposite.
Presumably you also think adultery is immoral, what with it being against one of the Ten Commandments.
Would you make that illegal / criminal as well?
Also suicide. Which actually was illegal until the Suicide Act 1961. Prior to that unsuccessful suicides were convicted and imprisoned. We think that modern mores are typical of history, whereas they are quite exceptional
Even worse, it used to carry the death penalty. There is an appalling story in I think Alvarez' The Savage God about a bloke who cut his throat, and was very difficult to hang because the wound kept opening up.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
Schutzenfest - theyll all be getting hammered for the next 5 days
More than at Oktoberfest?
Oktoberfest is for tourists
The real hammerings happen in the towns and villages over the summer and the big Rhineland Cities in the run up to Lent.
Well as a good Muslim boy Oktoberfest was wasted on me.
I'm off to Stuttgart next month, any places I should visit?
Stuttgart would seem a good place to start...
There is a big tower you can go up. Good view from the top (unsurprisingly).
Otherwise it was all beer and schnitzel when I was there.
Is there a large country in the world with worse cuisine than Germany? Canada, maybe?
UK probably. German food is good of its kind if you go to the right, traditional, places. If you are into fine dining you will likely find more choices and lower prices than elsewhere. A lot of the chefs in Germany are women, unusually.
Pre Boris I would expect the LDs to win the seat as like Peterborough the Brexit Party will split the Tory vote in this Leave voting seat.
However if Boris does indeed win the Tory leadership and become PM just before the by election then I think the Tories could hold it by winning back Brexit Party voters and if they have a local farmer as the candidate
Remember that in a Tory vs LD contest, the Tories would need to win 2 Leavers from TBP to make up for every Remainer they lose to LD
Which they would do under Boris, TBP and the Tories won well over 50% in Powys combined at the European elections
BXP will campaign along the lines of “keep Boris honest” and that’ll deny the Tories a lot of votes.
So if there's a tie, we have a re-run. But if a tie happens a second time all those in bottom place would be eliminated. (Assumes 3 candidates don't tie).
The law has nothing to do with morals. Morals are a matter for individuals not the law.
Of course the law is shaped on our morals as a society. Unless you're advocating a Ron Paul type society, which wouldn't be a completely bad thing, then it is a battle to define what those morals are.
And TSE, in the closet? Quite the opposite.
Presumably you also think adultery is immoral, what with it being against one of the Ten Commandments.
Would you make that illegal / criminal as well?
...and, as we seem to be on the subject of Biblical basis for law, iirc slavery is not strictly forbidden by the Bible, and this was used by pro-slavery campaigners prior to the American Civil War.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
Imagine the most Bavarian scene possible, Alpen foothills; locals out in traditional garb, houses with flowered wooden balconies. Sound of a brass band .. That's where I am right now.
At a former workplace we had a running joke - by mixing up 'working at the forefront of science' and 'pushing back the frontiers of science' we said that we were "pushing back the foreskin of science".
Comments
https://twitter.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1141664779435741184
If a majority wanted to ban interracial marriage should that be OK?
If a majority wanted to take away women's rights to vote should that be OK?
If a majority wanted to take away the right to vote from Norhtern Ireland should that be OK?
The answer to all to me is absolutely not under any circumstances.
However, if you were to assume good faith, you could say that the Brexit enthusiasts are concerned that the EU side are using the Irish situation as a pretext to prevent the UK from setting its own rules, and that they won't agree to the technological solution even though it's really great and totally works.
It's not a question of discussing whether people have the right to take away liberties from others. The liberties don't exist. They are already being taken away.
If at periodical elections the voters of NI elect an executive that chooses to keep their laws aligned with EU laws that would be their choice. That would be democratic.
No. He will let his friends in the ERG down and organize an extension.
The point I'm making is that we're not talking about the right of some oddball to argue for a hypothetical withdrawal of rights.
We're talking about a situation in which, by law, rights are already being withheld.
That's quite a difference.
Did they grow up to become the Little Men in Grey?
(I also loved his Bill Badger books.)
The circumstance of GE is if Boris doesn’t become PM because his government is taken down by defections and/or a VONC immediately after the election.
The right to travel and work is nice to have (and I liked it too) but it is not and never has been a fundamental human right. Not like the right to vote or get married.
Would you make that illegal / criminal as well?
But the Mercedes museum is good fun if you like cars.
Also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwigsburg_Palace
If all the LD campaigning on the petition can’t get closer to 20% than 10, then their chances for the by-election perhaps aren’t as good as assumed.
Neil should chair the final two debate .... please ....
GB can avoid dealing with its Brexit contradiction of maintaining the status quo in NI and being able to diverge from the EU if Ireland follows the UK in that divergence
This is the real issue. Ireland doesn't see why it should fall in line with the UK. It didn't ask for Brexit and it thinks the EU gives it leverage over a UK weakened by Brexit. At the same time it worries that other EU member states might do a deal with the UK that sees Ireland isolated. That's why it is taking a very hard line on the border. Tactically it might be better to let events play out and then when the UK is in its new subordinate position relative to the EU, turn the screws
Perhaps Labour can force an election at the point at which it becomes clear that Johnson is ratting on Hard Brexit. But since that would be suicide for the Tories it will be difficult.
My prediction is no election, no referendum, the Withdrawal Agreement passed in 2020.
Otherwise it was all beer and schnitzel when I was there.
https://twitter.com/JewishWorker/status/1141435753395826688
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1141673540481179648
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/20/four-reasons-why-trump-is-cruising-towards-re-election
Could 2020 end up being a repeat of 2016? Remain to lose - again - in a rerun of the Brexit referendum, and Trump to win re-election.
Would any bookie offer odds on the double?
https://twitter.com/Dr_Ulrichsen/status/1141566695989006336
Boom-tish
The voters of NI either must have the right to vote on EU laws or the right to diverge. Having to follow laws but having no right to diverge is colonialism and is undemocratic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCLn94xi1LQ
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-48702392
The snowflakes are going to get a shock when they get on Tinder looking for a partner...
Democracy is more important than the risk of violence or economic hardship.
A sectarian majority of NI voters has no right to disenfranchise their compatriots.
If all NI voters get regular elections to shape their laws and they continuously elect people who choose to keep the laws aligned then that is their choice.
German wine, of course, should be poured down the sink.
Two spoilt ballot papers
Johnson 157
Gove 61
Hunt 59
Javid 34
Spoilt: 2
Gove second.
Talking of which:
Two spoiled papers!
Hunt 59
Javid 34
Johnson 157
Javid eliminated
Gove overtakes Hunt for 2nd
Gove 61
Hunt 59
Javid 34