tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sean_F said:

Sandpit said:

Sean_F said:

Gardenwalker said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/campaignforleo/status/1100739129070026752?s=21

Ireland suddenly punching above its weight and no fear of trampling egos in London.

Has something changed in the geopolitical order?

They've been demanding this for decades.

Wasn’t the whole point of the ‘peace process’ that we left the past in the past?

The point being that *we* are meant to leave the past in the past. Irish Republicans have no intention of doing so.

Or perhaps we should have an inquiry.

After all, we’ve already admitted that the British government colluded in his murder.

Doesn’t sound like cricket to me.

But blowing up pubs is?

We are meant to be better than the terrorists.

Would you be ok with state sanctioned murder if Corbyn or future Home Secretary Chris Williamson had that power ?

I disapprove of murder full stop. But I accept that to move forward, justice has to be sacrificed. If it is to be sacrificed on one side, it should be sacrificed on all three sides.

We've resumed the inquests into the Birmingham pub bombings.

Will the victims' families get justice? Will there be prosecutions?

It is something that they have pushed for, but it is a Coroners inquest, not a judicial enquiry.

Personally, I would approach these issues of memory a bit like South Africa, with amnesty contingent on telling the truth and confession.

kinabalu said:

david_herdson said:

No - if the extension is only to June 30, there isn't time for an EURef2. There'd only be three and a half months from the March 14 vote to the new Brexit Date: that's nothing like long enough to pass a Bill for the new referendum, allow campaign groups to organise and register, and then hold the vote. I reckon you'd need at least six months - which of course means into the new EP term.

If the extension is for only 3 months, it really does become May's Deal / No Deal / Revoke.

But another extension would be granted for either REF2 or GE - do you not think?

I think that would be very difficult if the UK hadn't participated in the EP elections, as that would mean that the EP might well not be properly constituted and so any legislation it passed could be invalid. Perhaps there might be ways round that but it wouldn't be certain without an CJEU ruling as to what was legal. It wouldn't just be that the UK wasn't there - it'd also potentially be that MEPs from other countries *were* there who shouldn't be (i.e. the expected-to-be-former seats for the UK).

If the UK isn't to leave until July or later, I think it'll need to be sorted out in March.

Put another way, if Labour is serious about an EURef2, it'll need to try to amend the extension date on the March 14 motion, as well as try to enable the process.

kinabalu said:

Ghastly character, Griffin. How come he hasn't been banned from Twitter like Tommy?

Dunno, I think possibly twitter's policy is pretty reactive, ie controversy >> ban pillock. Griffin is rather yesterday's man since the BNP collapsed, not in the news much.

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

If it was not for religious groups half our food Banks and homeless hostels would be gone

No they wouldn't. People would still go out and help their neighbours. The idea that charity and helping your fellow man is in any way a reserve of the religious is simply wrong.

It's obviously not a reserve (he did say half, not all) but there's a lot of evidence that religious people give more to charity, and tend to be more involved in their community (meal rotas, blood drives, schools, youth groups, etc) - possibly because they by definition have one, whereas for non religious people, the local community can be a somewhat nebulous term.

If you could find a way of replicating the support networks that small community groupings have across larger towns and cities, it would probably remove the last really good reason for organised religion to continue to exist.

Tee hee.
https://twitter.com/IanAustinMP/status/1100514648233779202

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1100760415401926657

https://twitter.com/SugaCaneRoxie/status/1100760594230243328

brokenwheel said:

As I said this is why relenting now on the referendum was not tactically smart from Corbyn. He hasn't made any friends, just more enemies. The people that don't like him will continue not to like him and it's not going to stop MPs leaving because his insincerity is barely concealed, the trust simply isn't there. Besides those MPs are people he doesn't want in the party anyway.

Well it was forced but, yes, I agree. The pivot to REF2 should have been saved for if there were to be a pre Brexit GE. It would then have positioned the election of a Labour government on the critical path to cancelling Brexit. That IMO would have a good chance of delivering victory.

England doing ok in the ODI v the Windies.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

Touble at le Mill.
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1100757436556824581

Revocation of Article 50 it is then.

That helps Theresa a bit.

kinabalu said:

brokenwheel said:

As I said this is why relenting now on the referendum was not tactically smart from Corbyn. He hasn't made any friends, just more enemies. The people that don't like him will continue not to like him and it's not going to stop MPs leaving because his insincerity is barely concealed, the trust simply isn't there. Besides those MPs are people he doesn't want in the party anyway.

Well it was forced but, yes, I agree.

Forced by people threatening to jump anyway, and who will continue to threaten to jump. They've smelt blood and the feeding frenzy will continue.

Sean_F said:

Foxy said:

Harris_Tweed said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Foxy said:

kinabalu said:

brendan16 said:

I agree tolerance is important.

The majority of British Muslims (52%) according to polling think gay people should be locked up (compared to only 5% of the general population) and a further 30% did not have an opinion on the matter. Four in ten thought wives should always obey their husbands.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

It does make one wonder what drives the atheist Chinese government, the Hindu nationalist government in India (vs Pakistan), the Burmese and to a less extent Thai Buddhist nations and the Israeli Jewish state to not look too favourably on their Muslim minorities or neighbouring states. Let alone how Christians including Yazidis in the middle east may feel too.

Given this seems to be a global issue what can we do to promote greater tolerance?

If you believe that Muslims are on the whole backward primitives whose values are out of step with 'ours' why not just say that?

It's not anti-semitic so you won't get jumped on.

That is a rather simplistic view.

That doesn't mean that Individuals are inevitably

I think this is just about spot on. My only comment would be that, as an atheist, I think we give way too much latitude to religious groups and allow them to do things in the name of their religion that we would never allow for any other community grouping.

But I still feel that all religious groups exert an unwelcome and excessive amount of influence on our society and our institutions.

The problem is when people want to apply their own beliefs to other people. Knock yourself out if you want to cut off bits of your own body or refrain from gay/premarital sex to keep your god happy. But don't presume to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do, and everyone can be happy. The balance between individual freedoms and societal standards is set by democratic, secular parliaments rather than by churches nowadays - even in places like Ireland - albeit with some lingering reference back to the old days. If people want to listen to their preferred flavour of bloke in a dress for additional guidance, great. But I won't be, and it should never trump the secular.

Ironically a problematic issue on the Isle of Harris Tweed!

All politicians, religious and non-religious, want to apply their beliefs to others. It's why they are politicians.

Some don't have many beliefs and trade them as they see fit as politics is a career choice.

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

Touble at le Mill.
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1100757436556824581

Revocation of Article 50 it is then.

That helps Theresa a bit.

I'm guessing Macron will let the extension go through actually. But he's going to make it clear that's a one time deal - so June 29th really WILL be it.

Not just the French though, i'm sure the opportunity will not have gone unnoticed by Salvini.

TheScreamingEagles said:

England doing ok in the ODI v the Windies.

Good omen for Spurs tonight?

Wondering now if the no-deal vote specifies _how_ the PM should ensure such an outcome. She asks for an extension, EU says nope, is she then compelled to revoke?

If the latter was the case, it puts the ERG in a pretty tricky place for the earlier WA vote.

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anorak said:

Touble at le Mill.
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1100757436556824581

Revocation of Article 50 it is then.

That helps Theresa a bit.

I'm guessing Macron will let the extension go through actually. But he's going to make it clear that's a one time deal - so June 29th really WILL be it.

The ERG will probably wake up and smell the coffee on 1st July.

Anorak said:

I'm not sure that quite works. Muslims and Catholics are by definition members of the Islamic Religion and the Roman Catholic church. Jews are not by definition Zionists (though many are; this is not a controversial fact). The failure to understand that Jews are neither necessarily Zionists, nor responsible for the actions of the Israeli state, is the root of most left wing antisemitism.

But neither are Muslims and Catholics necessarily particularly Islamic or Catholic. Indeed the ones I know of both persuasions are very much not. They are soft not hard in their beliefs.

Zionism also has a hard and soft definition. The soft one is an approval and acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East and to defend itself against those who wish it harm. The hard one is the belief in the Jews as 'chosen people' whose rights and merits exceed those of others in the region, and that Israel as the sacred homeland can never be criticized, must always be supported in whatever it chooses to do. I would say that the former includes most people, Jewish or otherwise, and the latter not so many. Most of the people I know, and I venture most of those on here, are soft zionists. So am I.

kinabalu said:

Anorak said:

I'm not sure that quite works. Muslims and Catholics are by definition members of the Islamic Religion and the Roman Catholic church. Jews are not by definition Zionists (though many are; this is not a controversial fact). The failure to understand that Jews are neither necessarily Zionists, nor responsible for the actions of the Israeli state, is the root of most left wing antisemitism.

But neither are Muslims and Catholics necessarily particularly Islamic or Catholic. Indeed the ones I know of both persuasions are very much not. They are soft not hard in their beliefs.

Zionism also has a hard and soft definition. The soft one is an approval and acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East and to defend itself against those who wish it harm. The hard one is the belief in the Jews as 'chosen people' whose rights and merits exceed those of others in the region, and that Israel as the sacred homeland can never be criticized, must always be supported in whatever it chooses to do. I would say that the former includes most people, Jewish or otherwise, and the latter not so many. Most of the people I know, and I venture most of those on here, are soft zionists. So am I.

I think taking this further would involve a lot of sticky ground around religion and ethnicity. You can be an atheist Jew, for example, but not an atheist Muslim.

You're on the money regarding the strains of Zionism, though, which is why I remain baffled why the hard left view it as such a pejorative term.

148grss said:

MattW said:

148grss said:

CD13 said:

Mr Bladder,

I don't bother arguing with anti-religious people. Some do like black and white, and seem to be experts on what I think. Pride is one of the great sins and we all still indulge in it. I'm Catholic but I'd be very happy with married priests and priestesses. Even a female Pope.

There's always a desire for perfection, but we aren't perfect. If we were, we wouldn't need help. This misplaced pride can often develop into arrogance. Atheists as well as theists. I'm not so arrogant that I can envisage science ever explaining everything. We have a better understanding than we used to have about 5% of the content of this universe, but it's baby steps and still subject to some ratification.

As for why, rather than how, you pays your money and ...

The thing is atheists don't claim to be perfect, whereas the Catholic Church, for a very long time, did and kinda still tries to.

I don't think it did, and I don't think it does. Care to explain?

And (writing as one with Protestant tendencies) that would be "Roman Catholic Church" !

The entire doctrine of Papal Infallibility and the Infallibility of the Church would suggest that the RCC has claimed divine perfection and, to a degree, still does.

The Right-on Church of Corbyn?

Anorak said:

kinabalu said:

Anorak said:

I'm not sure that quite works. Muslims and Catholics are by definition members of the Islamic Religion and the Roman Catholic church. Jews are not by definition Zionists (though many are; this is not a controversial fact). The failure to understand that Jews are neither necessarily Zionists, nor responsible for the actions of the Israeli state, is the root of most left wing antisemitism.

But neither are Muslims and Catholics necessarily particularly Islamic or Catholic. Indeed the ones I know of both persuasions are very much not. They are soft not hard in their beliefs.

Zionism also has a hard and soft definition. The soft one is an approval and acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East and to defend itself against those who wish it harm. The hard one is the belief in the Jews as 'chosen people' whose rights and merits exceed those of others in the region, and that Israel as the sacred homeland can never be criticized, must always be supported in whatever it chooses to do. I would say that the former includes most people, Jewish or otherwise, and the latter not so many. Most of the people I know, and I venture most of those on here, are soft zionists. So am I.

I think taking this further would involve a lot of sticky ground around religion and ethnicity. You can be an atheist Jew, for example, but not an atheist Muslim.

You're on the money regarding the strains of Zionism, though, which is why I remain baffled why the hard left view it as such a pejorative term.

On the contrary, I know Jewish Athiests, Muslim Athiests, Hindu Athiests, Catholic Athiests, and Presbyterian Athiests (like my father). Each is quite certain of the God that they don't believe in!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

England doing ok in the ODI v the Windies.

Good omen for Spurs tonight?

Bairstow out now so who knows?

and Root...

gulp....

brokenwheel said:

Forced by people threatening to jump anyway, and who will continue to threaten to jump. They've smelt blood and the feeding frenzy will continue.

I do agree. The Labour leadership should keep their eye on the prize - general election.

And IMO the best way to engineer that is to stay passive on Brexit. Oppose the May deal and propose their own soft BINO version. Nothing more. Make TM and the Tories own the tough decisons from here. They are in government.

148grss said:

MattW said:

148grss said:

CD13 said:

Mr Bladder,

I don't bother arguing with anti-religious people. Some do like black and white, and seem to be experts on what I think. Pride is one of the great sins and we all still indulge in it. I'm Catholic but I'd be very happy with married priests and priestesses. Even a female Pope.

There's always a desire for perfection, but we aren't perfect. If we were, we wouldn't need help. This misplaced pride can often develop into arrogance. Atheists as well as theists. I'm not so arrogant that I can envisage science ever explaining everything. We have a better understanding than we used to have about 5% of the content of this universe, but it's baby steps and still subject to some ratification.

As for why, rather than how, you pays your money and ...

The thing is atheists don't claim to be perfect, whereas the Catholic Church, for a very long time, did and kinda still tries to.

I don't think it did, and I don't think it does. Care to explain?

And (writing as one with Protestant tendencies) that would be "Roman Catholic Church" !

The entire doctrine of Papal Infallibility and the Infallibility of the Church would suggest that the RCC has claimed divine perfection and, to a degree, still does.

That's not very convincing, and "Perfect" or "a very long time" seem to me to be a little overegging the pudding.

Papal Infallibility was made into a dogma in I think 1870 or so, and is circumscribed to the Pope speaking in his (accepted by RCs) role as successor of St Peter, relating to "matters of faith or morals". I think the number of times it has been used in 150 years and accepted throughout the RC Church is exactly once.

The Doctrine of Infallibility of the Church is one I had not heard of referenced in that fashion, but seems to relate to the Authority of Ecumenical (ie with authority accepted by the entire Church Militant) Councils. The last of these was in, I think, Niceae II in 787AD.

You perhaps need to be taking history into account that is more recent than 787AD?

I would describe Perfectibility as more of a Protestant thing in churches with a 'Holiness' background, but that will take us down a theological rabbit hole.

Time for the roast of Trump.

david_herdson said:

Andrew said:

Wondering now if the no-deal vote specifies _how_ the PM should ensure such an outcome. She asks for an extension, EU says nope, is she then compelled to revoke?

If the latter was the case, it puts the ERG in a pretty tricky place for the earlier WA vote.

No, she would be compelled to oversee No Deal by the automatic operation of EU and UK law.

She probably doesn't have lawful authority to revoke without a change to the Notification Act. I suppose the government could table an Act to make that amendment but it's doubtful it could pass in time and in any case, there'd be immense opposition within the government (or without of it, once the resignations hit).

A parliamentary motion cannot override primary legislation.

Does the Notification Act remove the governments prerogative to revoke, as well as invoke?

The latest polling shows about 42% favouring No Deal.

Anorak said:

kinabalu said:

I think taking this further would involve a lot of sticky ground around religion and ethnicity. You can be an atheist Jew, for example, but not an atheist Muslim.

You're on the money regarding the strains of Zionism, though, which is why I remain baffled why the hard left view it as such a pejorative term.

Agree on the sticky ground.

You can also be a "catholic atheist" or "protestant atheist" as indicators of style, or as Dawkins put it once (which may have been in the Graun) you can be an "athiest".

Errrrrr....Trump looks like he's got some issues.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1100776173771075584

Anorak said:

I think taking this further would involve a lot of sticky ground around religion and ethnicity. You can be an atheist Jew, for example, but not an atheist Muslim.

You're on the money regarding the strains of Zionism, though, which is why I remain baffled why the hard left view it as such a pejorative term.

Oh allah, yes, let's not then. All the "is it a bird, is it a plane?" business. That is a road to perdition.

I would like to throw in a soft v hard definition of feminism too, however, just to take us into less choppy waters.

Soft - Women are equal in worth to men and should have equal rights.

Hard - The world can only be understood properly if viewed as a patriarchy. The whole of human history is the story of the exploitation of women by men.

Here too, most people are soft feminists (or at least say they are) but few are of the hard variety.

In this case I think I am one of the few not the many.

Slackbladder said:

Errrrrr....Trump looks like he's got some issues.

What from Cohen? He's about to go to prison and has admitted lying to Congress. He's a nobody

AndyJS said:

The latest polling shows about 42% favouring No Deal.

There is evidence that some people think no deal means that we do not leave.

eek said:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1100775787295322112

Has Rees Mogg, Blackford and Caroline Lucas on the order paper so will go through without division I expect.

Foxy said:

Anorak said:

kinabalu said:

Anorak said:

I'm not sure that quite works. Muslims and Catholics are by definition members of the Islamic Religion and the Roman Catholic church. Jews are not by definition Zionists (though many are; this is not a controversial fact). The failure to understand that Jews are neither necessarily Zionists, nor responsible for the actions of the Israeli state, is the root of most left wing antisemitism.

But neither are Muslims and Catholics necessarily particularly Islamic or Catholic. Indeed the ones I know of both persuasions are very much not. They are soft not hard in their beliefs.

Zionism also has a hard and soft definition. The soft one is an approval and acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East and to defend itself against those who wish it harm. The hard one is the belief in the Jews as 'chosen people' whose rights and merits exceed those of others in the region, and that Israel as the sacred homeland can never be criticized, must always be supported in whatever it chooses to do. I would say that the former includes most people, Jewish or otherwise, and the latter not so many. Most of the people I know, and I venture most of those on here, are soft zionists. So am I.

I think taking this further would involve a lot of sticky ground around religion and ethnicity. You can be an atheist Jew, for example, but not an atheist Muslim.

You're on the money regarding the strains of Zionism, though, which is why I remain baffled why the hard left view it as such a pejorative term.

On the contrary, I know Jewish Athiests, Muslim Athiests, Hindu Athiests, Catholic Athiests, and Presbyterian Athiests (like my father). Each is quite certain of the God that they don't believe in!

I'd argue that they are "from a Catholic family", etc, rather than a Catholic per se. AIUI - because I'm not a Jew - being Jewish doesn't work like that.

DougSeal said:

AndyJS said:

The latest polling shows about 42% favouring No Deal.

If there was a referendum tomorrow with the options of remaining in the EU, accepting the government’s Brexit agreement, or leaving the EU without a deal, which would you support?

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-there-was-a-referendum-tomorrow-with-the-option-of-remaining-in-the-eu-accepting-the-governments-brexit-agreement-or-leaving-the-eu-without-a-deal-which-would-you-support-2-2/

That's dated January 18th. I suspect things may have changed since then.

oxfordsimon said:

Just watched the opening of the Cohen hearing and what an utter farce.

Republicans - quite rightly - raised the issue that the written evidence/statements were not provided to them 24 hours before the start of the hearing and the Chair just pushed on regardless

They were right to demand a postponement so that the material could be properly digested but the Democrat majority pushed it through.

When the rules of the committee are ignored to create political theatre, there is something wrong with the system.

I’m not sure the Republicans have any moral authority to be complaining about misuse of majorities.

Endillion said:

On point 4), while that all may be true, I don't think it even comes to explaining why there's an army on Twitter arguing that the state of Israel is funding media-driven opposition to the UK Labour party.

Israel is a hate object for those fanatics on the Left (e.g. Ken Livingstone) who see it as a racist white colonial enterprise sustained by a belief in racial and cultural supremacy and the oppression of those deemed inferior.

Israel is a love object for those fanatics on the Right (e.g. Katie Hopkins) who see it as a racist white colonial enterprise sustained by a belief in racial and cultural supremacy and the oppression of those deemed inferior.

148grss said:

Sean_F said:

148grss said:

MattW said:

148grss said:

CD13 said:

Mr Bladder,

I don't bother arguing with anti-religious people. Some do like black and white, and seem to be experts on what I think. Pride is one of the great sins and we all still indulge in it. I'm Catholic but I'd be very happy with married priests and priestesses. Even a female Pope.

There's always a desire for perfection, but we aren't perfect. If we were, we wouldn't need help. This misplaced pride can often develop into arrogance. Atheists as well as theists. I'm not so arrogant that I can envisage science ever explaining everything. We have a better understanding than we used to have about 5% of the content of this universe, but it's baby steps and still subject to some ratification.

As for why, rather than how, you pays your money and ...

The thing is atheists don't claim to be perfect, whereas the Catholic Church, for a very long time, did and kinda still tries to.

I don't think it did, and I don't think it does. Care to explain?

And (writing as one with Protestant tendencies) that would be "Roman Catholic Church" !

The entire doctrine of Papal Infallibility and the Infallibility of the Church would suggest that the RCC has claimed divine perfection and, to a degree, still does.

As I understand it, the Pope is only infallible when he enunciates religious doctrine.

So in a specific time and place the pope can be perfect. So it believes in perfection, to a degree.

The Sunni and the Shia believe their doctrine is infallibly correct.. someone is telling porkies!

OblitusSumMe said:

david_herdson said:

RobD said:

david_herdson said:

Andrew said:

Wondering now if the no-deal vote specifies _how_ the PM should ensure such an outcome. She asks for an extension, EU says nope, is she then compelled to revoke?

If the latter was the case, it puts the ERG in a pretty tricky place for the earlier WA vote.

No, she would be compelled to oversee No Deal by the automatic operation of EU and UK law.

She probably doesn't have lawful authority to revoke without a change to the Notification Act. I suppose the government could table an Act to make that amendment but it's doubtful it could pass in time and in any case, there'd be immense opposition within the government (or without of it, once the resignations hit).

A parliamentary motion cannot override primary legislation.

Does the Notification Act remove the governments prerogative to revoke, as well as invoke?

The Act only granted the power to invoke notification of A50. There are different legal opinions as whether that means that there was an implicit power to revoke contained within that clause but I'd suggest that the Act should be read as written, rather than as imagined.

The argument re the prerogative would be that a government would not be able to revoke by prerogative an action that was explicitly granted by legislation, when the contrary power was not explicitly granted.

For me the question would be whether the Act directed the Executive to invoke Article 50, or merely provided the power to do so. If the latter then it follows that it remains the discretion of the Executive when and whether to use that power, so I think it follows that the Executive has the power to revoke the notification. The former would then be your interpretation.

The judgment in the Miller case depended on the assumption of inevitable loss of statutory rights from invoking article 50. That argument doesn't apply to revoking it so the default should be that the power lies with the executive.

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

Anorak said:

I think taking this further would involve a lot of sticky ground around religion and ethnicity. You can be an atheist Jew, for example, but not an atheist Muslim.

You're on the money regarding the strains of Zionism, though, which is why I remain baffled why the hard left view it as such a pejorative term.

Oh allah, yes, let's not then. All the "is it a bird, is it a plane?" business. That is a road to perdition.

I would like to throw in a soft v hard definition of feminism too, however, just to take us into less choppy waters.

Soft - Women are equal in worth to men and should have equal rights.

Hard - The world can only be understood properly if viewed as a patriarchy. The whole of human history is the story of the exploitation of women by men.

Here too, most people are soft feminists (or at least say they are) but few are of the hard variety.

In this case I think I am one of the few not the many.

I think it's more the case that throughout history the powerful have exploited the weak. The powerful have mostly been men (but there have been powerful women) while the weak may be either sex.

To an extent, that's true - but there can surely be little doubt that most societies have given men substantially more rights than women, whether at the top of society or the bottom. Kings ruled countries as men ruled households.

There are pre-20th century (or arguably, pre-21st century) exceptions of rich and powerful women but these are notable in large part simply because they are rare - and even then, they almost universally gained their power because of who they married or who fathered them.

That said, it's also true that many of these women readily adopted the exploitative habits and abuses of men in similar positions. The question feminists would (rightly) ask is whether they did so out of necessity in order to fit into a male-defined culture, or whether such actions are innate instincts to humans of either gender in such positions?

The latter. The will to power is common to both sexes.

Anorak said:

Foxy said:

Anorak said:

kinabalu said:

Anorak said:

I'm not sure that quite works. Muslims and Catholics are by definition members of the Islamic Religion and the Roman Catholic church. Jews are not by definition Zionists (though many are; this is not a controversial fact). The failure to understand that Jews are neither necessarily Zionists, nor responsible for the actions of the Israeli state, is the root of most left wing antisemitism.

But neither are Muslims and Catholics necessarily particularly Islamic or Catholic. Indeed the ones I know of both persuasions are very much not. They are soft not hard in their beliefs.

Zionism also has a hard and soft definition. The soft one is an approval and acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East and to defend itself against those who wish it harm. The hard one is the belief in the Jews as 'chosen people' whose rights and merits exceed those of others in the region, and that Israel as the sacred homeland can never be criticized, must always be supported in whatever it chooses to do. I would say that the former includes most people, Jewish or otherwise, and the latter not so many. Most of the people I know, and I venture most of those on here, are soft zionists. So am I.

I think taking this further would involve a lot of sticky ground around religion and ethnicity. You can be an atheist Jew, for example, but not an atheist Muslim.

You're on the money regarding the strains of Zionism, though, which is why I remain baffled why the hard left view it as such a pejorative term.

On the contrary, I know Jewish Athiests, Muslim Athiests, Hindu Athiests, Catholic Athiests, and Presbyterian Athiests (like my father). Each is quite certain of the God that they don't believe in!

I'd argue that they are "from a Catholic family", etc, rather than a Catholic per se. AIUI - because I'm not a Jew - being Jewish doesn't work like that.

I self-identify as a Catholic Atheist

SquareRoot said:

148grss said:

Sean_F said:

148grss said:

MattW said:

148grss said:

CD13 said:

Mr Bladder,

I don't bother arguing with anti-religious people. Some do like black and white, and seem to be experts on what I think. Pride is one of the great sins and we all still indulge in it. I'm Catholic but I'd be very happy with married priests and priestesses. Even a female Pope.

There's always a desire for perfection, but we aren't perfect. If we were, we wouldn't need help. This misplaced pride can often develop into arrogance. Atheists as well as theists. I'm not so arrogant that I can envisage science ever explaining everything. We have a better understanding than we used to have about 5% of the content of this universe, but it's baby steps and still subject to some ratification.

As for why, rather than how, you pays your money and ...

The thing is atheists don't claim to be perfect, whereas the Catholic Church, for a very long time, did and kinda still tries to.

I don't think it did, and I don't think it does. Care to explain?

And (writing as one with Protestant tendencies) that would be "Roman Catholic Church" !

The entire doctrine of Papal Infallibility and the Infallibility of the Church would suggest that the RCC has claimed divine perfection and, to a degree, still does.

As I understand it, the Pope is only infallible when he enunciates religious doctrine.

So in a specific time and place the pope can be perfect. So it believes in perfection, to a degree.

The Sunni and the Shia believe their doctrine is infallibly correct.. someone is telling porkies!

Given that both Sunni and Shia abhor pork, I think you need to find another word...

AndyJS said:

The latest polling shows about 42% favouring No Deal.

Does that include the 28% who think No Deal means we are staying in?

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2322312/26-of-poll-thinks-no-deal-means-stay-in-the-eu

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

Anorak said:

I think taking this further would involve a lot of sticky ground around religion and ethnicity. You can be an atheist Jew, for example, but not an atheist Muslim.

You're on the money regarding the strains of Zionism, though, which is why I remain baffled why the hard left view it as such a pejorative term.

Oh allah, yes, let's not then. All the "is it a bird, is it a plane?" business. That is a road to perdition.

I would like to throw in a soft v hard definition of feminism too, however, just to take us into less choppy waters.

Soft - Women are equal in worth to men and should have equal rights.

Hard - The world can only be understood properly if viewed as a patriarchy. The whole of human history is the story of the exploitation of women by men.

Here too, most people are soft feminists (or at least say they are) but few are of the hard variety.

In this case I think I am one of the few not the many.

I think it's more the case that throughout history the powerful have exploited the weak. The powerful have mostly been men (but there have been powerful women) while the weak may be either sex.

To an extent, that's true - but there can surely be little doubt that most societies have given men substantially more rights than women, whether at the top of society or the bottom. Kings ruled countries as men ruled households.

There are pre-20th century (or arguably, pre-21st century) exceptions of rich and powerful women but these are notable in large part simply because they are rare - and even then, they almost universally gained their power because of who they married or who fathered them.

That said, it's also true that many of these women readily adopted the exploitative habits and abuses of men in similar positions. The question feminists would (rightly) ask is whether they did so out of necessity in order to fit into a male-defined culture, or whether such actions are innate instincts to humans of either gender in such positions?

The latter. The will to power is common to both sexes.

Disagree. To gain position, and retain it in a male dominated environment, one needed to conform.

Secondly, while doubtless there are venal, ambitious, and ruthless women as well as men, looking at the behaviour of only those who succeeded in a male world is an appalling sample bias.

Anorak said:

Sean_F said:

david_herdson said:

Sean_F said:

kinabalu said:

Anorak said:

I think taking this further would involve a lot of sticky ground around religion and ethnicity. You can be an atheist Jew, for example, but not an atheist Muslim.

You're on the money regarding the strains of Zionism, though, which is why I remain baffled why the hard left view it as such a pejorative term.

Oh allah, yes, let's not then. All the "is it a bird, is it a plane?" business. That is a road to perdition.

I would like to throw in a soft v hard definition of feminism too, however, just to take us into less choppy waters.

Soft - Women are equal in worth to men and should have equal rights.

Hard - The world can only be understood properly if viewed as a patriarchy. The whole of human history is the story of the exploitation of women by men.

Here too, most people are soft feminists (or at least say they are) but few are of the hard variety.

In this case I think I am one of the few not the many.

I think it's more the case that throughout history the powerful have exploited the weak. The powerful have mostly been men (but there have been powerful women) while the weak may be either sex.

To an extent, that's true - but there can surely be little doubt that most societies have given men substantially more rights than women, whether at the top of society or the bottom. Kings ruled countries as men ruled households.

There are pre-20th century (or arguably, pre-21st century) exceptions of rich and powerful women but these are notable in large part simply because they are rare - and even then, they almost universally gained their power because of who they married or who fathered them.

That said, it's also true that many of these women readily adopted the exploitative habits and abuses of men in similar positions. The question feminists would (rightly) ask is whether they did so out of necessity in order to fit into a male-defined culture, or whether such actions are innate instincts to humans of either gender in such positions?

The latter. The will to power is common to both sexes.

Disagree. To gain position, and retain it in a male dominated environment, one needed to conform.

Secondly, while doubtless there are venal, ambitious, and ruthless women as well as men, looking at the behaviour of only those who succeeded in a male world is an appalling sample bias.

Yes, but over the past 100 years, it's become increasingly common to encounter women in positions in power. I don't think there's much evidence that they behave very differently from men in positions of power. We've got a much bigger sample now.

OllyT said:

AndyJS said:

The latest polling shows about 42% favouring No Deal.

Does that include the 28% who think No Deal means we are staying in?

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/2322312/26-of-poll-thinks-no-deal-means-stay-in-the-eu

That's a twitter "poll".

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1087061534596055040

OblitusSumMe said:

williamglenn said:

OblitusSumMe said:

david_herdson said:

RobD said:

david_herdson said:

Andrew said:

Wondering now if the no-deal vote specifies _how_ the PM should ensure such an outcome. She asks for an extension, EU says nope, is she then compelled to revoke?

If the latter was the case, it puts the ERG in a pretty tricky place for the earlier WA vote.

No, she would be compelled to oversee No Deal by the automatic operation of EU and UK law.

She probably doesn't have lawful authority to revoke without a change to the Notification Act. I suppose the government could table an Act to make that amendment but it's doubtful it could pass in time and in any case, there'd be immense opposition within the government (or without of it, once the resignations hit).

A parliamentary motion cannot override primary legislation.

Does the Notification Act remove the governments prerogative to revoke, as well as invoke?

The Act only granted the power to invoke notification of A50. There are different legal opinions as whether that means that there was an implicit power to revoke contained within that clause but I'd suggest that the Act should be read as written, rather than as imagined.

The argument re the prerogative would be that a government would not be able to revoke by prerogative an action that was explicitly granted by legislation, when the contrary power was not explicitly granted.

For me the question would be whether the Act directed the Executive to invoke Article 50, or merely provided the power to do so. If the latter then it follows that it remains the discretion of the Executive when and whether to use that power, so I think it follows that the Executive has the power to revoke the notification. The former would then be your interpretation.

The judgment in the Miller case depended on the assumption of inevitable loss of statutory rights from invoking article 50. That argument doesn't apply to revoking it so the default should be that the power lies with the executive.

I think the issue raised by David was a bit different - would revoking Article 50 involve cancelling the Invocation Act, which would be beyond Executive power?

Ah, it was the latter then. The Act conferred the power on the PM but didn’t instruct her to use it.

https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1100785323682996224

Morris_Dancer said:

During the Merovingian period, women were regents for child-kings. When Alexius Comnenus went to fight off Robert Guiscard's invasion of the Baltic, he left his mum in charge of the Roman Empire (Guiscard's second wife was a commander on the battlefield).

And that's before we get into the Diadochi era (not chronologically, obviously): http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.com/2015/10/macedonian-she-wolves.html

Painting history as men ruling and women serving is simplistic and inaccurate. Even in a very one-sided world (say, 15th/16th century England) there were advantages for women. Treason included disobeying a husband. So if a woman was guilty with her husband of murder, she could cite her duty to obey and get off without punishment.

https://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.com/2018/10/advantages-for-women-in-middle-ages.html

Hmmm. I think that's the same approach that would cite "free meals and accommodation" as an advantage of slavery.

Michael Crick
‏Verified account @MichaelLCrick

Labour’s Parliamentary Committee - senior PLP members - met this afternoon & I’m told everyone present agreed with Tom Watson that Chris Williamson should be suspended - except the non-MP rep from Corbyn’s office who was adamant they didn’t want him suspended

Corbyn calls Watsons bluff...