Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
True. But I actually think he could and would have made a good President.
From all reports he was a competent and decent Governor of California. Every time he speaks on politics he comes across as competent and decent too.
If we stripped away the movie stardom and the foreign birth factor then being a good Governor of California, let alone a Republican who wins California, would make any normal politician a serious contender.
Although he wouldn't have won without the movie stardom of which the foreign birth factor was a pretty crucial component.
Absolutely of course. Everyone has a backstory though, would George W Bush have become Governor of Texas had it not been for the fact his father had been President of the United States?
Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled himself up by his own bootstraps more than George W Bush ever could have.
The point is, like Ronald Reagan before him, once in office he was good at his job. That is surely what matters?
If it hadn't been for the constitutional ban then he really could have ran for and potentially won the oval office like Reagan before him going from actor to Governor of California to President of the United States of America. Like Reagan, I think he could have made a very good President if he had.
"Recent studies in England also illustrate this link between obesity and income. Of the 10 worst areas in terms of overweight or obese children, half are also in the worst 10 for child poverty. England’s most obese council, Brent, is also its ninth poorest, whereas England’s wealthiest council, Richmond, despite being a neighbouring council in London, is one of the sprightliest, with a relatively low rate of obesity. And England’s poorest council? Another London borough, Newham, is also the eighth most affected by childhood obesity."
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.
A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
I didn’t hear him.
But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
Yes but I don't think that's the preserve of Labour.
Boris Johnson has not come across as uncaring. Far, far, from it. I think in part because he contracted the virus he's had very good empathy. And no one can accuse Rishi Sunak of failing to rise to the challenge of helping people.
They've made errors on free school meals and Cummings should have been censured but they're basically doing a bloody good job.
As I mentioned, I voted Labour last election and LibDem the one before. I'm hardly a tory but I have to hand it to this Government. The vaccine procurement from multiple developers in advance was a blinder and the rollout is a stunning success.
The vaccine procurement and deployment has been a success. The government has done very well there. Financial support for employees also good, particularly early on.
The government has however dithered and failed to bring in restrictions that were obviously going to have to happen in a timely manner. I'll give them a bit of a pass on the first lockdown being late as that was always going to be a very hard decision, but the later restrictions have been obviously coming and obviously a little late each time...
Having said that, I do think that if the vaccine rollout goes well and we're out of restrictions with low cases/deaths in the not too distant future (and particularly if we're out of restrictions before other countries) then all except those personally affected will forget about the high death toll here and the government will be doing very well in the polls.
Surely everyone in the country has been "personally affected" to a greater or lesser degree? They may not have actually caught Covid but they will know someone who did, their elderly relatives will have been cowering in their homes for the best part of a year and there can be very few - if any - people whose job has not been affected in some way, even if it is just moving from office to WFH.
I doubt the success of the vaccine roll out will move the polls much - gratitude is not a major factor in voting behaviour. When things get back to normal there will be active groups of Covid survivors and bereaved relatives who will pursue Johnson and the Tories for the rest of their lives, just as Blair is pursued over Iraq. His card is marked and there's very little he can do about it.
'Personally affected' as in knowing someone who died or has long Covid (or having long Covid themselves). Those personally affected by lockdowns etc will be glad that it's over. If it's over for them sooner than in other countries then they'll think the government has done a good job.
You may be right that there will be no big bounce in polls for Conservatives. What I think will be lacking, if the vaccination programme goes well, is a breakthrough for Labour. If the government were seen to be incompetent with vaccine roll-out then that would be good for the opposition, although obviously very bad for the country.
I say this as someone who is very much not a fan of Johnson, but wishes the vaccination programme to be a great success and I'll give the government credit for that (if little else) if that's the case. Doesn't mean I'll vote for Johnson!
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
There may have been something in it, if we'd ever hit "Peak Oil" on the supply side - but we kept on finding more of the stuff in places where extraction was much easier.
Not even then.
Until after the Falklands war, there was some hope that fields might be found that could be reached from the shallow waters around the Falklands, but the answer there was no.
At $500 a barrel, anything else is cheaper. It would literally be cheaper to extract hydrogen from water, carbon from the air and build the organics up from there - totally synthetic hydrocarbons.
$500 a barrel oil is an industry way of saying "that will never happen".
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
Indeed - but Arnie was actually a decent and reasonably pragmatic governor of California.
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
Good point. You could offer very inconvenient appointments, in terms of both location and time, to young and healthy people. The alternative would be for them to wait a number of months to have it at a more convenient time and place. Assumes that older people and people with health conditions wouldn't be able to, or want to, use those slots.
It's really not a good point.
The limiting factor on giving vaccinations is not physical locations. There are loads of GP surgeries, pharmacies church halls, marquees if necessary, in which vaccinations can be given.
You're also not going to have the people sticking needles in people's arms working for 24 hours.
So why not take the people who would be doing the night shift injections and have them do daytime vaccinations in a new location?
Did I hear correctly that Raaaaaab said yesterday that people may not get their Covid booster inside the 12 weeks? Its already been extended significantly out to 12 weeks, isn't there a risk that it loses effectiveness by going even longer?
Its genuinely brilliant that we are getting this many people vaccinated this quickly. Best not to reduce the effectiveness of this by delaying the 2nd jab to get more people the first jab. Surely...
Mr Zahawi also insisted that second doses of vaccines will be given within 12 weeks of the first - after Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab refused to confirm yesterday that would be the case.
Some people might fall through the cracks but it looks like policy to have second dose after 12 weeks, thank fuck.
My guess is Raab didn't want to say something out of place, and by trying to not do that... he did.
Sounds about right. Raab is not very bright.
Actually I think Raab is quite bright. And has some interesting ideas. And the right instincts on, for eg, China.
But has a tendency to say the wrong thing.
My one issue with Raab is his enthusiastic support of prorogation last year
ie your issue is that he supports the government of which he is a part!
But yes, like you I am rarely not impressed by Raab. Would he apply his intelligence to a less extreme government? Not sure, one would like to think so especially given his work experience.
I'm long of him for next Con leader. Sunak is more likely and a worthy betting favourite but at current prices I prefer Raab. Proper leaver. In a big job. Good age. Table manners. Scope to change gear. I can see it.
And the judgment of a halfwit. Though that hardly excludes him from the running.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
"Just off the coast of Argentina"?
In the same way that Switzerland is a tiny territory just off the coast of England? Switzerland is closer to England than the Falklands are to Argentina.
You omitted this splendid quote: "I've been fucked about for two days in United Whoredom. Now the best thing: I arrived in Germany, it took 15 minutes".
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
Maybe - there was little interest in wanting to join the Argentina before. It's 900 miles away and a completely different culture.
Since the fishing rights came in, the place is quite self supporting. Which has, in turn, closed the door to anyone looking in the direction of Argentina.
But we had an interest in coming to an arrangement. Might take a while now, though, I agree. Not exactly top of the agenda.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
Did wonder about the oil. If there were any, however inaccessible, someone would have given it a good go by now.
Sorry but this is complete garbage and Malmesbury doesn't have the first idea what he is talking about. Yes there is a very large amount of oil there. It is actually cheaper and easier to extract than current North Sea operations and is economic at a lower price than most North Sea fields and probably most offshore reserves anywhere in the world.
The current limits on extraction (which are actually being dealt with as we speak) are the infrastructure in the Falklands and the long transport chain if it is not being taken into South America. But both of these are not in any way insurmountable.
And unlike Malmesbury I very much know what I am talking about as I am involved in this and have been for several years.
Did I hear correctly that Raaaaaab said yesterday that people may not get their Covid booster inside the 12 weeks? Its already been extended significantly out to 12 weeks, isn't there a risk that it loses effectiveness by going even longer?
Its genuinely brilliant that we are getting this many people vaccinated this quickly. Best not to reduce the effectiveness of this by delaying the 2nd jab to get more people the first jab. Surely...
Mr Zahawi also insisted that second doses of vaccines will be given within 12 weeks of the first - after Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab refused to confirm yesterday that would be the case.
Some people might fall through the cracks but it looks like policy to have second dose after 12 weeks, thank fuck.
My guess is Raab didn't want to say something out of place, and by trying to not do that... he did.
Sounds about right. Raab is not very bright.
Actually I think Raab is quite bright. And has some interesting ideas. And the right instincts on, for eg, China.
But has a tendency to say the wrong thing.
My one issue with Raab is his enthusiastic support of prorogation last year
ie your issue is that he supports the government of which he is a part!
But yes, like you I am rarely not impressed by Raab. Would he apply his intelligence to a less extreme government? Not sure, one would like to think so especially given his work experience.
I'm long of him for next Con leader. Sunak is more likely and a worthy betting favourite but at current prices I prefer Raab. Proper leaver. In a big job. Good age. Table manners. Scope to change gear. I can see it.
And the judgment of a halfwit. Though that hardly excludes him from the running.
To your typical Tory party member - he is still a genius with Solomon levels of judgement.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
"Just off the coast of Argentina"?
In the same way that Switzerland is a tiny territory just off the coast of England? Switzerland is closer to England than the Falklands are to Argentina.
But you get my drift.
Yes, you're so bitter and twisted against your own nation that you uniquely don't accept the free right of people who descended from this nation on an island to have self-determination?
There is no "dispute". People have the right to self-determination and conquest is wrong. No ifs, no buts.
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
True. But I actually think he could and would have made a good President.
From all reports he was a competent and decent Governor of California. Every time he speaks on politics he comes across as competent and decent too.
If we stripped away the movie stardom and the foreign birth factor then being a good Governor of California, let alone a Republican who wins California, would make any normal politician a serious contender.
Although he wouldn't have won without the movie stardom of which the foreign birth factor was a pretty crucial component.
Absolutely of course. Everyone has a backstory though, would George W Bush have become Governor of Texas had it not been for the fact his father had been President of the United States?
Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled himself up by his own bootstraps more than George W Bush ever could have.
The point is, like Ronald Reagan before him, once in office he was good at his job. That is surely what matters?
If it hadn't been for the constitutional ban then he really could have ran for and potentially won the oval office like Reagan before him going from actor to Governor of California to President of the United States of America. Like Reagan, I think he could have made a very good President if he had.
But it's all moot. Schwarzenegger would be barred from standing for President, as he wasn't a US citizen at birth.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
Maybe - there was little interest in wanting to join the Argentina before. It's 900 miles away and a completely different culture.
Since the fishing rights came in, the place is quite self supporting. Which has, in turn, closed the door to anyone looking in the direction of Argentina.
But we had an interest in coming to an arrangement. Might take a while now, though, I agree. Not exactly top of the agenda.
When the coalition came in Cameron made an approach to Argentina and suggested a 50:50 split in oil rights between Argentina and the Falklands. De Kirchner was making a big deal of being hard nosed about the Falklands and so refused it.
The UK has given self-governance or independence to every territory that has asked for it - outside those being directly retained as military bases.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Technically, not only those large chunks but the entirity of France is still ruled by HM the Queen, under the line of succession that followed from the 1420 Treaty of Troyes. In the interests of diplomacy, we quietly dropped the claim from our monarch's title during the Napoleonic wars, but the claim was never formally renounced.
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
True. But I actually think he could and would have made a good President.
From all reports he was a competent and decent Governor of California. Every time he speaks on politics he comes across as competent and decent too.
If we stripped away the movie stardom and the foreign birth factor then being a good Governor of California, let alone a Republican who wins California, would make any normal politician a serious contender.
Although he wouldn't have won without the movie stardom of which the foreign birth factor was a pretty crucial component.
Absolutely of course. Everyone has a backstory though, would George W Bush have become Governor of Texas had it not been for the fact his father had been President of the United States?
Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled himself up by his own bootstraps more than George W Bush ever could have.
The point is, like Ronald Reagan before him, once in office he was good at his job. That is surely what matters?
If it hadn't been for the constitutional ban then he really could have ran for and potentially won the oval office like Reagan before him going from actor to Governor of California to President of the United States of America. Like Reagan, I think he could have made a very good President if he had.
But it's all moot. Schwarzenegger would be barred from standing for President, as he wasn't a US citizen at birth.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Technically, not only those large chunks but the entirity of France is still ruled by HM the Queen, under the line of succession that followed from the 1420 Treaty of Troyes. In the interests of diplomacy, we quietly dropped the claim from our monarch's title during the Napoleonic wars, but the claim was never formally renounced.
Technically, the French are still breaking the relevant treaty, IIRC.
Part of it is cleaning up his own house. Richard Leonard’s departure is more good news on that front.
Part of it is (should be) behind-scenes discussions with the LDs and perhaps even the DUP. The electoral maths suggest he likely needs some form of strategic alliance against the Tories.
Part of it is policy formulation, and he cannot he too explicit on this because the government will simply steal his ideas. He does need to stake out a general position on Brexit, SINDY and the economy and I suppose he is doing that.
The final bit is waiting. I do believe that this government is, at a fundamental level, incompetent. There’s always another cock-up on the way.
Agree with that, except: discussions with the DUP! Labour would lose most of its members and many of its voters if it went anywhere near the DUP.
Talking of DUP does anyone know if Kate Hoey takes the Labour whip in the HoL?
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
Maybe - there was little interest in wanting to join the Argentina before. It's 900 miles away and a completely different culture.
Since the fishing rights came in, the place is quite self supporting. Which has, in turn, closed the door to anyone looking in the direction of Argentina.
But we had an interest in coming to an arrangement. Might take a while now, though, I agree. Not exactly top of the agenda.
When the coalition came in Cameron made an approach to Argentina and suggested a 50:50 split in oil rights between Argentina and the Falklands. De Kirchner was making a big deal of being hard nosed about the Falklands and so refused it.
More correctly, the deal proposed was a territorial limits division - a bit like the North Sea carve up.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Technically, not only those large chunks but the entirity of France is still ruled by HM the Queen, under the line of succession that followed from the 1420 Treaty of Troyes. In the interests of diplomacy, we quietly dropped the claim from our monarch's title during the Napoleonic wars, but the claim was never formally renounced.
Technically, the French are still breaking the relevant treaty, IIRC.
What kind of country would break international law?
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
Did wonder about the oil. If there were any, however inaccessible, someone would have given it a good go by now.
Sorry but this is complete garbage and Malmesbury doesn't have the first idea what he is talking about. Yes there is a very large amount of oil there. It is actually cheaper and easier to extract than current North Sea operations and is economic at a lower price than most North Sea fields and probably most offshore reserves anywhere in the world.
The current limits on extraction (which are actually being dealt with as we speak) are the infrastructure in the Falklands and the long transport chain if it is not being taken into South America. But both of these are not in any way insurmountable.
And unlike Malmesbury I very much know what I am talking about as I am involved in this and have been for several years.
Without wishing to start an argument - which block(s) have actually been proven?
Wales' First Minister Mark Drakeford has defended the pace of the vaccine roll-out after facing criticism that it has been too slow.
Just over 88,000 people have received their first dose in Wales, about 2.6% of the total population - compared to 5.8% across the whole UK.
Mr Drakeford told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday that supplies of the Pfizer vaccine had to last until February and were being deployed at a steady rate.
"There will be no point, and certainly it will be logistically very damaging, to try to use all of that in the first week and then to have all our vaccinators standing around with nothing to do for another month," he said.
He said that supply was still the limiting factor and that the differences between parts of the UK were "very marginal".
Former Welsh Secretary Stephen Crabb said Mr Drakeford's comments were "astonishing" and called it a "go-slow" vaccine roll-out.
Part of it is cleaning up his own house. Richard Leonard’s departure is more good news on that front.
Part of it is (should be) behind-scenes discussions with the LDs and perhaps even the DUP. The electoral maths suggest he likely needs some form of strategic alliance against the Tories.
Part of it is policy formulation, and he cannot he too explicit on this because the government will simply steal his ideas. He does need to stake out a general position on Brexit, SINDY and the economy and I suppose he is doing that.
The final bit is waiting. I do believe that this government is, at a fundamental level, incompetent. There’s always another cock-up on the way.
Agree with that, except: discussions with the DUP! Labour would lose most of its members and many of its voters if it went anywhere near the DUP.
Talking of DUP does anyone know if Kate Hoey takes the Labour whip in the HoL?
Part of it is cleaning up his own house. Richard Leonard’s departure is more good news on that front.
Part of it is (should be) behind-scenes discussions with the LDs and perhaps even the DUP. The electoral maths suggest he likely needs some form of strategic alliance against the Tories.
Part of it is policy formulation, and he cannot he too explicit on this because the government will simply steal his ideas. He does need to stake out a general position on Brexit, SINDY and the economy and I suppose he is doing that.
The final bit is waiting. I do believe that this government is, at a fundamental level, incompetent. There’s always another cock-up on the way.
Agree with that, except: discussions with the DUP! Labour would lose most of its members and many of its voters if it went anywhere near the DUP.
That depends, I suspect the DUP would prefer a softer Brexit and a closer alignment to the EU for the whole UK which would bring GB closer to NI than what they have now.
I suspect Starmer could then sell that to the Labour base ie using the DUP only as a means to a softer Brexit.
That is why I believe the Tories have to win another outright majority in 2024 to stay in power, no minor party is certain to support them in a hung Parliament, even the DUP are not as likely to go with the Tories as they were in 2017
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
Did wonder about the oil. If there were any, however inaccessible, someone would have given it a good go by now.
Sorry but this is complete garbage and Malmesbury doesn't have the first idea what he is talking about. Yes there is a very large amount of oil there. It is actually cheaper and easier to extract than current North Sea operations and is economic at a lower price than most North Sea fields and probably most offshore reserves anywhere in the world.
The current limits on extraction (which are actually being dealt with as we speak) are the infrastructure in the Falklands and the long transport chain if it is not being taken into South America. But both of these are not in any way insurmountable.
And unlike Malmesbury I very much know what I am talking about as I am involved in this and have been for several years.
Without wishing to start an argument - which block(s) have actually been proven?
That is currently commercially sensitive. But since I am one of those who has been directly involved in the drilling the two alternatives here are that I know what I am talking about or I am telling a blatant lie.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
Maybe - there was little interest in wanting to join the Argentina before. It's 900 miles away and a completely different culture.
Since the fishing rights came in, the place is quite self supporting. Which has, in turn, closed the door to anyone looking in the direction of Argentina.
But we had an interest in coming to an arrangement. Might take a while now, though, I agree. Not exactly top of the agenda.
When the coalition came in Cameron made an approach to Argentina and suggested a 50:50 split in oil rights between Argentina and the Falklands. De Kirchner was making a big deal of being hard nosed about the Falklands and so refused it.
More correctly, the deal proposed was a territorial limits division - a bit like the North Sea carve up.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Technically, not only those large chunks but the entirity of France is still ruled by HM the Queen, under the line of succession that followed from the 1420 Treaty of Troyes. In the interests of diplomacy, we quietly dropped the claim from our monarch's title during the Napoleonic wars, but the claim was never formally renounced.
Technically, the French are still breaking the relevant treaty, IIRC.
I don't think so, doesn't the Treaty of Amiens supersede it?
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
Nearest neighbour by a long chalk though. It's a big big world. The idea that proximity = possession is backward? Yes I like that. But it can be simplified and improved. The idea of possession - proximate or not - is backward.
FPT - coming to this very late but that really is excellent advice by @Cyclefree on the previous thread (on a positive tester being pressured by a headteacher not to list them as a recent contact)
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
Indeed - but Arnie was actually a decent and reasonably pragmatic governor of California.
In response to @Sandpit above (sorry too far back to go and find the post) I agree with everything you say except the last para. Your argument in that last para is in my opinion very sound and I agree with it in terms of the effect, but there is the overriding factor, in my opinion, that the US needs to deter someone else from doing a Trump again and possibly succeeding.
Consequently I want the book thrown at him and for him to be bankrupted and spend the rest of his days in jail. I want his enablers to also be punished. I appreciate the negative sides of this that it will create (as you highlight). Not only does it give him years of publicity, but also it will lengthen the split in the country. It might even cause revolution so completely negating what I would want to see being achieved. If that is the case I will have been very, very wrong. Luckily nobody is going to take my views into account.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
South of Scotland seceding from the rest of the country not an option, but the cases of Orkney and Shetland are much more interesting because of their distinct constitutional history and island status. There is some interest, particularly in Shetland, in looking at options in the event of Scottish independence, not least as both island groups would almost certainly vote against Indy. They have never elected SNP representatives in either Parliament and are strongly Unionist.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Technically, not only those large chunks but the entirity of France is still ruled by HM the Queen, under the line of succession that followed from the 1420 Treaty of Troyes. In the interests of diplomacy, we quietly dropped the claim from our monarch's title during the Napoleonic wars, but the claim was never formally renounced.
I think both @TSE and myself have said that getting the French to honour the Treaty of Troyes is the one thing that would make us both vote Labour.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
Did wonder about the oil. If there were any, however inaccessible, someone would have given it a good go by now.
Sorry but this is complete garbage and Malmesbury doesn't have the first idea what he is talking about. Yes there is a very large amount of oil there. It is actually cheaper and easier to extract than current North Sea operations and is economic at a lower price than most North Sea fields and probably most offshore reserves anywhere in the world.
The current limits on extraction (which are actually being dealt with as we speak) are the infrastructure in the Falklands and the long transport chain if it is not being taken into South America. But both of these are not in any way insurmountable.
And unlike Malmesbury I very much know what I am talking about as I am involved in this and have been for several years.
Without wishing to start an argument - which block(s) have actually been proven?
That is currently commercially sensitive. But since I am one of those who has been directly involved in the drilling the two alternatives here are that I know what I am talking about or I am telling a blatant lie.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Technically, not only those large chunks but the entirity of France is still ruled by HM the Queen, under the line of succession that followed from the 1420 Treaty of Troyes. In the interests of diplomacy, we quietly dropped the claim from our monarch's title during the Napoleonic wars, but the claim was never formally renounced.
I think both @TSE and myself have said that getting the French to honour the Treaty of Troyes is the one thing that would make us both vote Labour.
While I know you're both joking, being serious nothing could be more horrifying to me.
Since we are a democracy England would not rule France, instead we would just merge and have democracy. They would become a fifth "home nation" and have as many MPs as the rest of the UK combined - and more MPs than England.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
What's odd about it? They are British, and want to keep being British.
Bit odd when you look at the map. I find it odd anyway. I think the question is more for you. Why do you not find it odd?
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
True. But I actually think he could and would have made a good President.
From all reports he was a competent and decent Governor of California. Every time he speaks on politics he comes across as competent and decent too.
If we stripped away the movie stardom and the foreign birth factor then being a good Governor of California, let alone a Republican who wins California, would make any normal politician a serious contender.
Although he wouldn't have won without the movie stardom of which the foreign birth factor was a pretty crucial component.
Absolutely of course. Everyone has a backstory though, would George W Bush have become Governor of Texas had it not been for the fact his father had been President of the United States?
Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled himself up by his own bootstraps more than George W Bush ever could have.
The point is, like Ronald Reagan before him, once in office he was good at his job. That is surely what matters?
If it hadn't been for the constitutional ban then he really could have ran for and potentially won the oval office like Reagan before him going from actor to Governor of California to President of the United States of America. Like Reagan, I think he could have made a very good President if he had.
Agree. Like Reagan, he's likeable, with a nice line in self-deprecation. And pretty smart, and motivated, judging by his career.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
Did wonder about the oil. If there were any, however inaccessible, someone would have given it a good go by now.
Sorry but this is complete garbage and Malmesbury doesn't have the first idea what he is talking about. Yes there is a very large amount of oil there. It is actually cheaper and easier to extract than current North Sea operations and is economic at a lower price than most North Sea fields and probably most offshore reserves anywhere in the world.
The current limits on extraction (which are actually being dealt with as we speak) are the infrastructure in the Falklands and the long transport chain if it is not being taken into South America. But both of these are not in any way insurmountable.
And unlike Malmesbury I very much know what I am talking about as I am involved in this and have been for several years.
Without wishing to start an argument - which block(s) have actually been proven?
That is currently commercially sensitive. But since I am one of those who has been directly involved in the drilling the two alternatives here are that I know what I am talking about or I am telling a blatant lie.
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
Indeed - but Arnie was actually a decent and reasonably pragmatic governor of California.
He's a Hollywood Republican, although he describes himself as a Reaganite one.
That is, fiscally conservative, low-tax, pro-business but socially liberal.
Sshsh! Don't let the cat out of the bag before he's gone!
That said, the difficulty of Donald Trump issuing a presidential pardon to Donald Trump is that he would need to accept that he was guilty of the specific charge that he pardoned himself of, namely that of causing or inciting an insurrection. And apart from the optics, that would be very tricky if the Supreme Court later struck down the ability of a sitting president to issue pardons to himself and he then had to row back from admitting his guilt in order to defend himself from the charge.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
What's odd about it? They are British, and want to keep being British.
Bit odd when you look at the map. I find it odd anyway. I think the question is more for you. Why do you not find it odd?
Because it isn't.
People have moved around in the past, it is pretty damn racist to say to one group and one group alone "move back to where you came from". Whether they moved there in their lifetime, or their ancestors did centuries ago.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
The oil thing is real - the Sea Lion discovery, for example, is probably just about economic around the current oil price - but a lot of the oil out there will probably end up as 'stranded assets'.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
The oil thing is real - the Sea Lion discovery, for example, is probably just about economic around the current oil price - but a lot of the oil out there will probably end up as 'stranded assets'.
Mining in Antarctica is way more loopy.
I think we should conclude this here. I've worked in the oil business and my view of Falklands exploration is so strong that it should not be aired here and foul up the air in OGH's place.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
"Just off the coast of Argentina"?
In the same way that Switzerland is a tiny territory just off the coast of England? Switzerland is closer to England than the Falklands are to Argentina.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Technically, not only those large chunks but the entirity of France is still ruled by HM the Queen, under the line of succession that followed from the 1420 Treaty of Troyes. In the interests of diplomacy, we quietly dropped the claim from our monarch's title during the Napoleonic wars, but the claim was never formally renounced.
I think both @TSE and myself have said that getting the French to honour the Treaty of Troyes is the one thing that would make us both vote Labour.
While I know you're both joking, being serious nothing could be more horrifying to me.
Since we are a democracy England would not rule France, instead we would just merge and have democracy. They would become a fifth "home nation" and have as many MPs as the rest of the UK combined - and more MPs than England.
Thanks, but no thanks.
I am joking.
We have the last laugh anyway since we still have the Channel Islands.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
Buenos Aires to Port Stanley is about the same distance as London to Minsk.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
No black and white on these issues in my view.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
South of Scotland seceding from the rest of the country not an option, but the cases of Orkney and Shetland are much more interesting because of their distinct constitutional history and island status. There is some interest, particularly in Shetland, in looking at options in the event of Scottish independence, not least as both island groups would almost certainly vote against Indy. They have never elected SNP representatives in either Parliament and are strongly Unionist.
Yep. I wasn't suggesting a realistic possibility, but it's not at all clear why it isn't realistic. As you say though the northern Isles are certainly viable candidates to follow their own path. Could be some very odd outcomes in all this.
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
Indeed - but Arnie was actually a decent and reasonably pragmatic governor of California.
He's a Hollywood Republican, although he describes himself as a Reaganite one.
That is, fiscally conservative, low-tax, pro-business but socially liberal.
When the Republican Party becomes the party of Reagan, let alone the party of Lincoln, and not the party of the Trump anymore then it will be fit for office.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
That 51% figure is too high and an indictment of our culture. It's one of those things that makes me want to leave the country, knowing that one in two people are comfortable with the idea of snitching is just dreadful.
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
True. But I actually think he could and would have made a good President.
From all reports he was a competent and decent Governor of California. Every time he speaks on politics he comes across as competent and decent too.
If we stripped away the movie stardom and the foreign birth factor then being a good Governor of California, let alone a Republican who wins California, would make any normal politician a serious contender.
Although he wouldn't have won without the movie stardom of which the foreign birth factor was a pretty crucial component.
Absolutely of course. Everyone has a backstory though, would George W Bush have become Governor of Texas had it not been for the fact his father had been President of the United States?
Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled himself up by his own bootstraps more than George W Bush ever could have.
The point is, like Ronald Reagan before him, once in office he was good at his job. That is surely what matters?
If it hadn't been for the constitutional ban then he really could have ran for and potentially won the oval office like Reagan before him going from actor to Governor of California to President of the United States of America. Like Reagan, I think he could have made a very good President if he had.
Agree. Like Reagan, he's likeable, with a nice line in self-deprecation. And pretty smart, and motivated, judging by his career.
And unlike Reagan is probably not an insouciant liar.
Nor would he, as Reagan did, have supported Nixon all the way through Watergate.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
That 51% figure is too high and an indictment of our culture. It's one of those things that makes me want to leave the country, knowing that one in two people are comfortable with the idea of snitching is just dreadful.
Yes, I used to be dismissive of it but I'm starting to understand what @edmundintokyo meant, now, when he said the British hate freedom.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
I think its more from that, that people don't want to be snitches.
I am OK to voluntarily follow the rules during a pandemic, whatever they are. I am not OK with "reporting others" and people should keep their noses out of other people's business.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.
Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
The said residents have rights. UN charter stuff.
Another point, often missed.
Argentine policy over Antarctica. Bit like Brazil with the Amazon - there is a big lobby in Argentina that wants to mine, extract oil etc on Antarctica... Hence their thing with claiming that they have actual residents on the Antarctic continent...
UK policy since the 1950s has been Antarctica should be untouched - this started because of the Cold War. There was a worry about a resource scramble there leading to a war. More recently, it has become part of the climate and environmental policy of the UK - hence South Georgia being a nature preserve.
This was why Argentina took South Georgia - which they have never previously claimed and have no claim to. By removing all the UK possessions in the South Atlantic, they would make a claim to the UK "share" of Antarctica.
While changes to mine Antarctica would be blocked by the other claimants - who have similar policies to the UK - the Argentine Antarctic lobby saw it as a step towards their goal.
Interesting thought, and would be much more advantageous to the Argentines than the sheep of the Malvinas. Even if there is accessible oil under the seas around them
The oil thing is bullshit. Used to scam investors. Yes, there is probably some oil there. Somewhere between un-extractable and only worth it at $500 a barrel.
The Antarctic thing was the "smart" reason for wanting the Falklands.
As opposed to the "dumb" version that paints the Malvinas as this land of milk and honey, stolen by the Evul Brits, that would cure Argentina's ills and make her a world power. Before lunch.....
Did wonder about the oil. If there were any, however inaccessible, someone would have given it a good go by now.
Sorry but this is complete garbage and Malmesbury doesn't have the first idea what he is talking about. Yes there is a very large amount of oil there. It is actually cheaper and easier to extract than current North Sea operations and is economic at a lower price than most North Sea fields and probably most offshore reserves anywhere in the world.
The current limits on extraction (which are actually being dealt with as we speak) are the infrastructure in the Falklands and the long transport chain if it is not being taken into South America. But both of these are not in any way insurmountable.
And unlike Malmesbury I very much know what I am talking about as I am involved in this and have been for several years.
Interesting; obliged. I wait to see what happens. What is the state of the Venezuelan reserves? Is there anywhere else which supplies the S American market?
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
True. But I actually think he could and would have made a good President.
From all reports he was a competent and decent Governor of California. Every time he speaks on politics he comes across as competent and decent too.
If we stripped away the movie stardom and the foreign birth factor then being a good Governor of California, let alone a Republican who wins California, would make any normal politician a serious contender.
Although he wouldn't have won without the movie stardom of which the foreign birth factor was a pretty crucial component.
Absolutely of course. Everyone has a backstory though, would George W Bush have become Governor of Texas had it not been for the fact his father had been President of the United States?
Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled himself up by his own bootstraps more than George W Bush ever could have.
The point is, like Ronald Reagan before him, once in office he was good at his job. That is surely what matters?
If it hadn't been for the constitutional ban then he really could have ran for and potentially won the oval office like Reagan before him going from actor to Governor of California to President of the United States of America. Like Reagan, I think he could have made a very good President if he had.
Agree. Like Reagan, he's likeable, with a nice line in self-deprecation. And pretty smart, and motivated, judging by his career.
And unlike Reagan is probably not an insouciant liar.
By the time he was President, I'm not sure Reagan could remember what the truth was....
At least nine infected people, including a tennis player, are in quarantine in Melbourne after arriving in thecity for the Australian Open tournament.
It’s turning into a total farce in Melbourne, there’s a good chance of the tournament being abandoned or boycotted by the players who can’t train in quarantine. Glad that F1 made the call to stay away.
Sshsh! Don't let the cat out of the bag before he's gone!
That said, the difficulty of Donald Trump issuing a presidential pardon to Donald Trump is that he would need to accept that he was guilty of the specific charge that he pardoned himself of, namely that of causing or inciting an insurrection. And apart from the optics, that would be very tricky if the Supreme Court later struck down the ability of a sitting president to issue pardons to himself and he then had to row back from admitting his guilt in order to defend himself from the charge.
Calling Mr Giuliani Although Trump would have to pay his bill first.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
So what happens in North Korea drops 1,000 settlers on Rockall and has a snap referendum on sovereignty?
We'd have to rescue them pretty quickly. There would be more than one person per metre squared, on rather rough terrain.
Didn't Scotland and Ireland have a squabble over this one only a couple of weeks ago?
Don't know what happened a couple of weeks ago, but generally I'm on Ireland's side here. They're saying that UK/Scotland shouldn't get any claim over territorial waters around Rockall because it's empty, we/Scots think we should get the 12nm because we say it's ours/Scottish.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
No. I'm agnostic. I know they have a claim but I'm not opining on how strong it is. My points are only -
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
What's odd about it? They are British, and want to keep being British.
They have their own written constitution and have had five referendums since 1986 (which aiui they themselves have the power to call); doesn’t seem very British to me.
At least nine infected people, including a tennis player, are in quarantine in Melbourne after arriving in thecity for the Australian Open tournament.
It’s turning into a total farce in Melbourne, there’s a good chance of the tournament being abandoned or boycotted by the players who can’t train in quarantine. Glad that F1 made the call to stay away.
Zero sympathy, I'm not sure how its a farce. If nine people have tested positive then it seems the Aussies were right to have strict quarantine rules in place, considering their situation with the pandemic that could have been at least 9 people to reseed the virus back into the community.
It isn't as if they didn't know they'd have to quarantine upon arrival. They could have arrived two weeks earlier if they were that bothered about training afterwards, or skipped it, its not a shock imposed upon them.
Sshsh! Don't let the cat out of the bag before he's gone!
That said, the difficulty of Donald Trump issuing a presidential pardon to Donald Trump is that he would need to accept that he was guilty of the specific charge that he pardoned himself of, namely that of causing or inciting an insurrection. And apart from the optics, that would be very tricky if the Supreme Court later struck down the ability of a sitting president to issue pardons to himself and he then had to row back from admitting his guilt in order to defend himself from the charge.
I dont get this - he would be admitting others might find him guilty, not that he is guilty. Given his whole schtick is how biased the establishment are to him, it is entirely consistent with his fantasies.
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
True. But I actually think he could and would have made a good President.
From all reports he was a competent and decent Governor of California. Every time he speaks on politics he comes across as competent and decent too.
If we stripped away the movie stardom and the foreign birth factor then being a good Governor of California, let alone a Republican who wins California, would make any normal politician a serious contender.
Although he wouldn't have won without the movie stardom of which the foreign birth factor was a pretty crucial component.
Absolutely of course. Everyone has a backstory though, would George W Bush have become Governor of Texas had it not been for the fact his father had been President of the United States?
Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled himself up by his own bootstraps more than George W Bush ever could have.
The point is, like Ronald Reagan before him, once in office he was good at his job. That is surely what matters?
If it hadn't been for the constitutional ban then he really could have ran for and potentially won the oval office like Reagan before him going from actor to Governor of California to President of the United States of America. Like Reagan, I think he could have made a very good President if he had.
Agree. Like Reagan, he's likeable, with a nice line in self-deprecation. And pretty smart, and motivated, judging by his career.
And unlike Reagan is probably not an insouciant liar.
By the time he was President, I'm not sure Reagan could remember what the truth was....
Unlike Boris Johnson who never knew what it was in the first place!
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
True. But I actually think he could and would have made a good President.
From all reports he was a competent and decent Governor of California. Every time he speaks on politics he comes across as competent and decent too.
If we stripped away the movie stardom and the foreign birth factor then being a good Governor of California, let alone a Republican who wins California, would make any normal politician a serious contender.
Although he wouldn't have won without the movie stardom of which the foreign birth factor was a pretty crucial component.
Absolutely of course. Everyone has a backstory though, would George W Bush have become Governor of Texas had it not been for the fact his father had been President of the United States?
Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled himself up by his own bootstraps more than George W Bush ever could have.
The point is, like Ronald Reagan before him, once in office he was good at his job. That is surely what matters?
If it hadn't been for the constitutional ban then he really could have ran for and potentially won the oval office like Reagan before him going from actor to Governor of California to President of the United States of America. Like Reagan, I think he could have made a very good President if he had.
Agree. Like Reagan, he's likeable, with a nice line in self-deprecation. And pretty smart, and motivated, judging by his career.
And unlike Reagan is probably not an insouciant liar.
By the time he was President, I'm not sure Reagan could remember what the truth was....
Whereas septuagenarian Arnie appears to be in full possession of his marbles.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
No. I'm agnostic. I know they have a claim but I'm not opining on how strong it is. My points are only -
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
They don't "have a claim". There is no claim, the island belongs to the islanders and people have a right to self-determination. There is no grey area here it is black and white.
It isn't our sovereignty over the island, it is the islanders sovereignty over the island. It isn't thousands of miles from them, they live there. That they choose to live under the protection of Britain is their choice freely made and justifiably so considering a fascist dictatorship from hundreds of miles away (not just off the coast) tried to invade them.
Why do you see it as British rule over the island instead of the islanders rule over the island? It seems that imperialism is still on your mind not mine.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
So what happens in North Korea drops 1,000 settlers on Rockall and has a snap referendum on sovereignty?
We'd have to rescue them pretty quickly. There would be more than one person per metre squared, on rather rough terrain.
Didn't Scotland and Ireland have a squabble over this one only a couple of weeks ago?
Don't know what happened a couple of weeks ago, but generally I'm on Ireland's side here. They're saying that UK/Scotland shouldn't get any claim over territorial waters around Rockall because it's empty, we/Scots think we should get the 12nm because we say it's ours/Scottish.
I'm surprised that no-one has bought up this utterly bonkers picture
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
So what happens in North Korea drops 1,000 settlers on Rockall and has a snap referendum on sovereignty?
We'd have to rescue them pretty quickly. There would be more than one person per metre squared, on rather rough terrain.
Didn't Scotland and Ireland have a squabble over this one only a couple of weeks ago?
Don't know what happened a couple of weeks ago, but generally I'm on Ireland's side here. They're saying that UK/Scotland shouldn't get any claim over territorial waters around Rockall because it's empty, we/Scots think we should get the 12nm because we say it's ours/Scottish.
I'm surprised that no-one has bought up this utterly bonkers picture
Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?
Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.
There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.
Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.
The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.
We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.
They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.
Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
You and 10 million others.
People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
We have been told that in our community all the 80+'s have been 'done', bar a tiny minority who don't appear to have phones, relatives or indeed, friends. My wife, 79, is now twitching when the phone rings!
Perhaps you have an electrical fault.
Don't worry, it's me who answers. Regrettably the two calls we have had so far today are about renewal of the Amazon Prime account, at an exorbitant price, which we don't have, Sadly it's a recorded message, so I can't suggest to the lady that she does something useful with her life.
Does anyone know what lies behind the silent calls with spoofed numbers?
We get them in fits and spurts, sometimes 4 or 5 a day then we go a week with none. They look like realistic numbers complete with std codes but if ever we answer all we get is silence, then the phone is hung up.
They are obviously some kind of scam but how do they make money from it?
From the few mugs who respond I suppose.
OKC are you enrolled in the telephone preference service?
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
No. I'm agnostic. I know they have a claim but I'm not opining on how strong it is. My points are only -
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
I think you'll find that its the other ocean - the one to right. South Atlantic.
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
So what happens in North Korea drops 1,000 settlers on Rockall and has a snap referendum on sovereignty?
We'd have to rescue them pretty quickly. There would be more than one person per metre squared, on rather rough terrain.
Didn't Scotland and Ireland have a squabble over this one only a couple of weeks ago?
Don't know what happened a couple of weeks ago, but generally I'm on Ireland's side here. They're saying that UK/Scotland shouldn't get any claim over territorial waters around Rockall because it's empty, we/Scots think we should get the 12nm because we say it's ours/Scottish.
International law is clear on territorial waters around the landmass of the sovereign state.
That said, it seems a deal on bilateral UK-Irish deal on fishing rights here would be sensible.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
Maybe - there was little interest in wanting to join the Argentina before. It's 900 miles away and a completely different culture.
Since the fishing rights came in, the place is quite self supporting. Which has, in turn, closed the door to anyone looking in the direction of Argentina.
But we had an interest in coming to an arrangement. Might take a while now, though, I agree. Not exactly top of the agenda.
When the coalition came in Cameron made an approach to Argentina and suggested a 50:50 split in oil rights between Argentina and the Falklands. De Kirchner was making a big deal of being hard nosed about the Falklands and so refused it.
This is the sort of thing I mean. Some sort of compromise to resolve the dispute. Bound to be found at some point, one would assume. Can't see another war over it. That was just a very Thatcher 82 event.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Am assuming there is quite an overlap between the 29% who think police shouldn't enforce mask use in shops - and those who don't want to mask up in shops?
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Nah, under 25s need to party, it's in their nature. This year has been a social development disaster for everyone but particularly those people under the age of 25 who are at no individual risk.
They're wasting away the best years of their life in lockdown, it is to be expected that they will break these rules. The Tatler exists to write about this stuff, I don't have any issue with it.
Everyone under the age of 50 has a lifetime of taxes to pay for this bullshit. If they want to go out and party, that's up to the government to stop with incentives.
Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.
They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.
I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.
It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.
Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
A favourite phrase of mine about low bars and limbo dancing mice springs to mind.
Indeed - but Arnie was actually a decent and reasonably pragmatic governor of California.
He's a Hollywood Republican, although he describes himself as a Reaganite one.
That is, fiscally conservative, low-tax, pro-business but socially liberal.
When the Republican Party becomes the party of Reagan, let alone the party of Lincoln, and not the party of the Trump anymore then it will be fit for office.
The problem with that is most of the key swing states in the MidWest are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal but fiscally centrist to populist and socially conservative. The fiscally conservative and socially liberal states are mainly found in the West where only Arizona and Nevada now are really genuine swing states. The South is fiscally and socially conservative and still strong GOP and the North East is now fiscally centre left and socially liberal and still strong Democrat.
It would be better to be fiscally centrist and socially moderate to conservative (Schwarzanneger governed California more like a centrist Democrat than Barry Goldwater).
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
No. I'm agnostic. I know they have a claim but I'm not opining on how strong it is. My points are only -
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
A few points to correct you on.
1- The islands are not small. - 4700 square miles or just over half the size of Wales 2- They are not in the South Pacific - they are in the South Atlantic. 3- One of the reasons for the invasion was because the British Foreign Office had quietly been pushing the concept of shared sovereignty with the Argentinians but it had been comprehensively rejected by the Islanders. Had there not been an invasion I don't think anything would have changed at all. Argentina, even now, is just too politically and economically unstable for anyone in their right minds to want to voluntarily cede their future to them.
More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.
And I voted for him.
In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.
And I would never vote for him.
Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?
It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:
I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?
Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
Nope.
They have no right to be there. Long, painful, and largely appalling history of British colonialsm.
We were, as a nation, a disgrace.
Presumably then you would have no issue with Ireland being reunited immediately, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
.... with Southern Ireland being back as part of the UK. After all, historically......
Alternatively, we could apply the standards of self-determination. The ones promulgated by the UN.
Quite likely that if it weren't for the invasion a compromise would have been found by now to settle the dispute. It's an odd situation, a tiny British territory with a couple of thousand people just off the coast of Argentina.
"Just off the coast of Argentina"?
In the same way that Switzerland is a tiny territory just off the coast of England? Switzerland is closer to England than the Falklands are to Argentina.
But you get my drift.
Not really. I've never understood the 'it's close to X so it should be part of/part governed by X' kind of argument. Nations and territories are complicated things anyway, but one thing is for certain, simply being near another unit or nation doesn't confer some divine right to some other part if that other part doesn't want to be part of it. Should Spain have a right to all of the Iberian Penninsula as that's implied by the way some act as though they have an inherent right to Gibraltar (so Portugal had best watch out)? Why does Malta not 'belong' to Italy, it's close by after all?
The Argentinian claims based around legal ownership are not completely ridiculous in the sense of various historical claims to things, but is pretty meaningless in the face of practical reality and reasonablness of any action to dispute those realities now.
We like to joke on here about claiming Calais, and frankly that one is at least no more ridiculous and possibly less so.
So these disputes are usually just proxy fights and excuses to distract people, unless the actual people involved wish for a different outcome (this is why Northern Ireland and similar places are different and more complex, as there is dispute over what should happen to it, within the area in question)
Mr. kinabalu, the Falkland Islands are more than 900 miles away from Argentina.
Not to mention the idea that proximity equates to possession is utterly backward.
There are large chunks of France that are
- less than 900 miles from my desk - were historically ruled by this country.
If we are saying "screw the views of the inhabitants".....
Who's saying that? Pas moi.
You're saying the Argentinians have a right to dispute the Falkland Islanders self-determination because of proximity. Nothing else, just proximity. When they aren't even that close.
No. I'm agnostic. I know they have a claim but I'm not opining on how strong it is. My points are only -
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
Please stop saying "just off the coast", it's hundreds of miles.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
I think its more from that, that people don't want to be snitches.
I am OK to voluntarily follow the rules during a pandemic, whatever they are. I am not OK with "reporting others" and people should keep their noses out of other people's business.
I think there's some of that but time and time again I meet (and see) people outside who vociferously criticise lockdown measures for not being hard enough - and the behaviours of others - whilst doing exactly the same thing themselves.
I agree entirely with the rest of your sentiments.
Comments
Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled himself up by his own bootstraps more than George W Bush ever could have.
The point is, like Ronald Reagan before him, once in office he was good at his job. That is surely what matters?
If it hadn't been for the constitutional ban then he really could have ran for and potentially won the oval office like Reagan before him going from actor to Governor of California to President of the United States of America. Like Reagan, I think he could have made a very good President if he had.
You may be right that there will be no big bounce in polls for Conservatives. What I think will be lacking, if the vaccination programme goes well, is a breakthrough for Labour. If the government were seen to be incompetent with vaccine roll-out then that would be good for the opposition, although obviously very bad for the country.
I say this as someone who is very much not a fan of Johnson, but wishes the vaccination programme to be a great success and I'll give the government credit for that (if little else) if that's the case. Doesn't mean I'll vote for Johnson!
Until after the Falklands war, there was some hope that fields might be found that could be reached from the shallow waters around the Falklands, but the answer there was no.
At $500 a barrel, anything else is cheaper. It would literally be cheaper to extract hydrogen from water, carbon from the air and build the organics up from there - totally synthetic hydrocarbons.
$500 a barrel oil is an industry way of saying "that will never happen".
Which strongly suggests that the Calais region of France is a failed state. And we all know what we do with failed states, don't we, children?
The limiting factor on giving vaccinations is not physical locations. There are loads of GP surgeries, pharmacies church halls, marquees if necessary, in which vaccinations can be given.
You're also not going to have the people sticking needles in people's arms working for 24 hours.
So why not take the people who would be doing the night shift injections and have them do daytime vaccinations in a new location?
Though that hardly excludes him from the running.
"I've been fucked about for two days in United Whoredom. Now the best thing: I arrived in Germany, it took 15 minutes".
The current limits on extraction (which are actually being dealt with as we speak) are the infrastructure in the Falklands and the long transport chain if it is not being taken into South America. But both of these are not in any way insurmountable.
And unlike Malmesbury I very much know what I am talking about as I am involved in this and have been for several years.
Being a moron may actually be a benefit.
There is no "dispute". People have the right to self-determination and conquest is wrong. No ifs, no buts.
Aside from that I don't see what the problem is with those few remaining overseas territories that want to retain a close relationship with the UK, other than self-loathing and embarrassment.
No doubt there are bits of Scotland that would dearly love to be allowed out of the UK, but the general consensus is that it should be all of Scotland or not at all. On the other hand, I wonder what the SNPs view would be if southern Scotland decided it wanted to remain as part of the UK? (Has that ever been postulated?)
I think it is generally right that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount - a really remote Island, but I don't see you can make a general argument in any of this.
Only one country has invaded the Falklands in our lifetime. Spoiler alert: It wasn't the United Kingdom.
Since there was nothing of actual value.....
Just over 88,000 people have received their first dose in Wales, about 2.6% of the total population - compared to 5.8% across the whole UK.
Mr Drakeford told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday that supplies of the Pfizer vaccine had to last until February and were being deployed at a steady rate.
"There will be no point, and certainly it will be logistically very damaging, to try to use all of that in the first week and then to have all our vaccinators standing around with nothing to do for another month," he said.
He said that supply was still the limiting factor and that the differences between parts of the UK were "very marginal".
Former Welsh Secretary Stephen Crabb said Mr Drakeford's comments were "astonishing" and called it a "go-slow" vaccine roll-out.
I have respect for every single Argentinean that fought for the Falklands and zero for mysticrose.
I suspect Starmer could then sell that to the Labour base ie using the DUP only as a means to a softer Brexit.
That is why I believe the Tories have to win another outright majority in 2024 to stay in power, no minor party is certain to support them in a hung Parliament, even the DUP are not as likely to go with the Tories as they were in 2017
Your choice.
Consequently I want the book thrown at him and for him to be bankrupted and spend the rest of his days in jail. I want his enablers to also be punished. I appreciate the negative sides of this that it will create (as you highlight). Not only does it give him years of publicity, but also it will lengthen the split in the country. It might even cause revolution so completely negating what I would want to see being achieved. If that is the case I will have been very, very wrong. Luckily nobody is going to take my views into account.
Since we are a democracy England would not rule France, instead we would just merge and have democracy. They would become a fifth "home nation" and have as many MPs as the rest of the UK combined - and more MPs than England.
Thanks, but no thanks.
That is, fiscally conservative, low-tax, pro-business but socially liberal.
Fairly close to @TSE I'd have thought.
https://www.building.co.uk/news/london-builders-have-until-middle-of-this-week-to-cut-tube-overcrowding-or-face-sites-being-shut-down/5109907.article
That said, the difficulty of Donald Trump issuing a presidential pardon to Donald Trump is that he would need to accept that he was guilty of the specific charge that he pardoned himself of, namely that of causing or inciting an insurrection. And apart from the optics, that would be very tricky if the Supreme Court later struck down the ability of a sitting president to issue pardons to himself and he then had to row back from admitting his guilt in order to defend himself from the charge.
People have moved around in the past, it is pretty damn racist to say to one group and one group alone "move back to where you came from". Whether they moved there in their lifetime, or their ancestors did centuries ago.
Shame on you.
Mining in Antarctica is way more loopy.
We have the last laugh anyway since we still have the Channel Islands.
Some proximity.....
When the Republican Party becomes the party of Reagan, let alone the party of Lincoln, and not the party of the Trump anymore then it will be fit for office.
That's a fascinating poll because people are willing to be hardcore, but note that they are slightly less enthusiastic when they realise they might be caught out.
Ironclad law: people want very severe lockdown restrictions.. for other people.
Nor would he, as Reagan did, have supported Nixon all the way through Watergate.
I am OK to voluntarily follow the rules during a pandemic, whatever they are. I am not OK with "reporting others" and people should keep their noses out of other people's business.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9158861/Novak-Djokovics-Australian-Open-quarantine-demands-rejected.html
As ever, actually convicting the bugger will be more problematic.
Although Trump would have to pay his bill first.
If there hadn't been the invasion I think a settlement would likely have been found by this point. Probably will not happen for ages now.
Our sovereignty over a small island with a handful of inhabitants over there in the South Pacific feels odd in 2021. If it doesn't feel odd to you it's because British colonialism lives on in your mind as nothing unusual. Brit rule over a far-flung island just off the coast of Argentina? Well of course!
https://twitter.com/dollytheis/status/1350430542135783430
It isn't as if they didn't know they'd have to quarantine upon arrival. They could have arrived two weeks earlier if they were that bothered about training afterwards, or skipped it, its not a shock imposed upon them.
It isn't our sovereignty over the island, it is the islanders sovereignty over the island. It isn't thousands of miles from them, they live there. That they choose to live under the protection of Britain is their choice freely made and justifiably so considering a fascist dictatorship from hundreds of miles away (not just off the coast) tried to invade them.
Why do you see it as British rule over the island instead of the islanders rule over the island? It seems that imperialism is still on your mind not mine.
OKC are you enrolled in the telephone preference service?
Or are you thinking Pitcairn?
That said, it seems a deal on bilateral UK-Irish deal on fishing rights here would be sensible.
They're wasting away the best years of their life in lockdown, it is to be expected that they will break these rules. The Tatler exists to write about this stuff, I don't have any issue with it.
Everyone under the age of 50 has a lifetime of taxes to pay for this bullshit. If they want to go out and party, that's up to the government to stop with incentives.
It would be better to be fiscally centrist and socially moderate to conservative (Schwarzanneger governed California more like a centrist Democrat than Barry Goldwater).
1- The islands are not small. - 4700 square miles or just over half the size of Wales
2- They are not in the South Pacific - they are in the South Atlantic.
3- One of the reasons for the invasion was because the British Foreign Office had quietly been pushing the concept of shared sovereignty with the Argentinians but it had been comprehensively rejected by the Islanders. Had there not been an invasion I don't think anything would have changed at all. Argentina, even now, is just too politically and economically unstable for anyone in their right minds to want to voluntarily cede their future to them.
The Argentinian claims based around legal ownership are not completely ridiculous in the sense of various historical claims to things, but is pretty meaningless in the face of practical reality and reasonablness of any action to dispute those realities now.
We like to joke on here about claiming Calais, and frankly that one is at least no more ridiculous and possibly less so.
So these disputes are usually just proxy fights and excuses to distract people, unless the actual people involved wish for a different outcome (this is why Northern Ireland and similar places are different and more complex, as there is dispute over what should happen to it, within the area in question)
Lord Sumption tells stage 4 cancer patient her life is 'less valuable
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jan/17/jonathan-sumption-cancer-patient-life-less-valuable-others
I agree entirely with the rest of your sentiments.