politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It could be that front-runner, Jim Murphy, is too divisive
Options
Comments
-
Ok. You've convinced me that there should be an exception for Northern Irish citizens on Ireland-related matters.Neil said:
By pursuing, for example, Irish unity, you are pursuing constitutional change in part of the UK without identifying as British. Which the Good Friday Agreement specifically provides for. To grant parity of esteem to people choosing either nationality but then limiting the franchise to only one of those groups would not only be illogical it would go against the agreement that people voted on (if the agreement had provided for that it would obviously have been defeated).Socrates said:
If you want to play a role in the national politics and constitutional change of the UK, then surely you're identifying as part of the British nation?Neil said:
How can you pursue national and political aspirations (or indeed constitutional change by peaceful means) without a vote?Socrates said:
I don't see how they would be breaking any commitment. The commitment said that people can choose which passports they want to hold, not what voting rights would be attached to each passport.Neil said:
Why would anyone want to vote in any election? It's not a question of wanting to vote in any case. It's a question of the government not dropping a commitment made in the past (particularly one that people voted on and that forms a core part of the peace process on which so much in these islands depends).0 -
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
0 -
Darling didn't get the credit he deserved for beating Salmond in that first independence debate IMO. I can't imagine any other Westminster politician being able to make Salmond look like the chancer he is, as Darling did that night.0
-
3. Those with Indefinite Leave to Remain (eg. by virtue of marriage to a British Citizen).rcs1000 said:Re people having the right to vote here in national elections.
1. Citizens
2. A very small number of other people where we have reciprocal agreements with their governments (i.e Ireland)0 -
You mean "as well", not "though".JohnLilburne said:
They could be prosecuted for war crimes, though.Ishmael_X said:
What you said was: "Those who fight for a foreign state are not terrorists within the meaning of s. 1 of the 2000 Act. Those who fight against a state are." There is no exemption for acts done "under the colour of public authority" and therefore nothing to exempt a jihadist who enlists in a foreign army in order to participate in an ethnic or sectarian civil war, and in fact fights in that war.Life_ina_market_town said:
Of course you can fight for a state without fighting against a state. Consider the position of soldiers of a legitimate government putting down an insurrection. I should, however, have been clearer that fighting against a state is obviously not terrorism if it is done under the colour of public authority. Nowhere did I assert that ISIS were a state.Ishmael_X said:How do you fight for a state, without fighting against a state? There are no grounds at all for the distinction you seek to make. The answer to the Foreign Legion question is that it isn't terrorism as defined by TA 2000.
IS isn't a state anyway, it's a proscribed organisation.
The law is what I stated it to be. A person who uses firearms or explosives, whose actions involve a serious threat to life or property, and whose act is done for the purposes of a political, religious or ideological cause is a terrorist under the law. A person who advances the aims of a proscribed organisation is also a terrorist. That includes 99.9% of British subjects who have gone to Syria to fight against the Assad government. The First Secretary of State's remarks evidently extend to such persons.
0 -
I thought Labour were banking on Jim lad having that skill and popularity.Artist said:Darling didn't get the credit he deserved for beating Salmond in that first independence debate IMO. I can't imagine any other Westminster politician being able to make Salmond look like the chancer he is like Darling did that night.
0 -
The right of Commonwealth citizens to vote dates back to 1918. The test was whether you were a "British Subject" (of the Empire, later Commonwealth).0
-
My Mum is an Indian Citizen with Indefinite Leave to Remain. She is eligibubble to vote at GEs.
As far as I know, she has never received any voting cards from the Indian Government (eg. for this year's Indian GE).0 -
There's no such thing as a Northern Irish citizen, that's partly the point really. And there's nothing in the GFA about "Ireland-related matters". The agreement provides for the rights of all to pursue political aspirations without qualification.Socrates said:
Ok. You've convinced me that there should be an exception for Northern Irish citizens on Ireland-related matters.Neil said:
By pursuing, for example, Irish unity, you are pursuing constitutional change in part of the UK without identifying as British. Which the Good Friday Agreement specifically provides for. To grant parity of esteem to people choosing either nationality but then limiting the franchise to only one of those groups would not only be illogical it would go against the agreement that people voted on (if the agreement had provided for that it would obviously have been defeated).Socrates said:
If you want to play a role in the national politics and constitutional change of the UK, then surely you're identifying as part of the British nation?Neil said:
How can you pursue national and political aspirations (or indeed constitutional change by peaceful means) without a vote?Socrates said:
I don't see how they would be breaking any commitment. The commitment said that people can choose which passports they want to hold, not what voting rights would be attached to each passport.Neil said:
Why would anyone want to vote in any election? It's not a question of wanting to vote in any case. It's a question of the government not dropping a commitment made in the past (particularly one that people voted on and that forms a core part of the peace process on which so much in these islands depends).
0 -
James Kelly:
"It's official - the SNP are projected to be the third-largest party in the next House of Commons. The broadcasters' plan to exclude them from the leaders' debates is now utterly untenable."
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
Well, actually I suspect it's the other way round. If there were (making up numbers): 10,000 UK citizens resident in Jamaica, and 200,000 Jamaicans resident in the UK, then British citizens in Jamaica would make up a greater percentage of voters than the other way around. (Simply because Jamaica has 2m people, and we have 60m. And how many Jamaicans in the UK have not taken British citizenship, anyway?)Socrates said:
I think I could accept your position, although I would question how much "reciprocity" there is in situations like Jamaica, when there are many, many, many times more Jamaicans here than there are Brits resident there.rcs1000 said:Re people having the right to vote here in national elections.
1. Citizens
2. A very small number of other people where we have reciprocal agreements with their governments (i.e Ireland)
If there is no reciprocal agreement (India, Pakistan, etc.) then there should be no voting rights.
I wouldn't be in favour of stripping voting rights from - say - Dominican Republic citizens, where they have a similar set-up with UK citizens in their country because: (a) it's simply not worth the diplomatic fuss of snubbing an ally, particularly given (b) UK citizens resident in their country are likely to have a far greater impact on their elections than the other way round.
There is a case to be made that somewhat who is a citizen in the UK, but has chosen not to be tax resident for a significant period of time (say 5+ years), should lose the right to vote in the UK unless they (a) live here or (b) pay taxes here.0 -
Third-party or not, what's the point if 92% of the voters can nether vote for or against them?AndyJS said:James Kelly:
"It's official - the SNP are projected to be the third-largest party in the next House of Commons. The broadcasters' plan to exclude them from the leaders' debates is now utterly untenable."
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
Labour, which has now upped the amount of effort it is putting into the campaign apparently in the hope of beating the Tories into second place. The word is that the Tory candidate comes over very poorly in public meetings and hustings and the other parties are trying to organise as many as possible because they hope this will show her up. Doubt this will have a significant influence on the result though. Some Labour voters going UKIP because they think it's the best way of kicking the Tories, other considering going Tory to stop UKIP. Many Tories going to UKIP. The Tory primary appeared to have had zero impact. There are also local issues - poor schools and hospitals came up with some voters and Labour are trying to pin this on the (Tory) Coucil and government.AndyJS said:
Thanks for the field report Nick. Which party were you canvassing for?anothernick said:
Just back from a canvsassing trip to Rochester. Canvassed a mixed area in Strood - small houses, some private some social housing. The whole area had a rather downbeat feel - poorly maintained streets, quite a large proportion of houses run down and rather unkempt. Lot of UKIP leaflets in evidence, also a few posters. Some Tory leaflets also, but fewer in number. The general view on the ground seems to be that UKIP have it in the bag.AndyJS said:After a few hours of moving slightly towards the Tories the Betfair numbers for Rochester are returning to where they were this time yesterday:
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115925336#id=1.1157074460 -
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?0 -
@Socrates
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Jamaican), there are 49,000 people with Jamaican citizenship in the UK. If there are more than 2,500 British people resident in Jamaica then then they have greater influence on Jamaican elections than vice-versa.0 -
Surprised at the news - he left that rather late to announce his departure.Scott_P said:@GeorgeWParker: Alistair Darling to step down as MP in 2015: FT exclusive interview
http://t.co/dP51DU1iEv
flags flying at half mast over a certain an Birkenhead off license?0 -
Darling going, that's the end of any slim chance of a sensible grown up chancellor after the next GE. More Brownian economics will follow, unless the Tories some how win and put somebody like Hammond there (which seems unlikely current management shift him as far away from that as possible since GE).
0 -
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?0 -
I wonder when Darling's memoirs will be released..?0
-
Because she's also a Commonwealth Citizen.Sunil_Prasannan said:My Mum is an Indian Citizen with Indefinite Leave to Remain. She is eligibubble to vote at GEs.
0 -
It's a fair point I hadn't considered.rcs1000 said:@Socrates
Factual correction from me: there are 2.7m people in Jamaica, not 2m. Nevertheless, the approx 20-1 ratio is about right.
So even if we go for your middle-way position: why hasn't it been done yet? It's so painfully obvious that it would be politically supported if we only removed the rights from nations which were no longer reciprocal.0 -
0
-
What sort of world are we living in where a single room at the Euston Travelodge regularly goes for £200?0
-
Personally I would insure it on an all-risks basis on house insurance (if possible). Probably cost about £10.00.JohnLilburne said:
0 -
When the by-election was first called I wanted to put a small bet on Labour beating the Tories into third place but couldn't find that option being offered by any betting firms.anothernick said:
Labour, which has now upped the amount of effort it is putting into the campaign apparently in the hope of beating the Tories into second place. The word is that the Tory candidate comes over very poorly in public meetings and hustings and the other parties are trying to organise as many as possible because they hope this will show her up. Doubt this will have a significant influence on the result though. Some Labour voters going UKIP because they think it's the best way of kicking the Tories, other considering going Tory to stop UKIP. Many Tories going to UKIP. The Tory primary appeared to have had zero impact. There are also local issues - poor schools and hospitals came up with some voters and Labour are trying to pin this on the (Tory) Coucil and government.AndyJS said:
Thanks for the field report Nick. Which party were you canvassing for?anothernick said:
Just back from a canvsassing trip to Rochester. Canvassed a mixed area in Strood - small houses, some private some social housing. The whole area had a rather downbeat feel - poorly maintained streets, quite a large proportion of houses run down and rather unkempt. Lot of UKIP leaflets in evidence, also a few posters. Some Tory leaflets also, but fewer in number. The general view on the ground seems to be that UKIP have it in the bag.AndyJS said:After a few hours of moving slightly towards the Tories the Betfair numbers for Rochester are returning to where they were this time yesterday:
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115925336#id=1.1157074460 -
I agree: it's bizarre it has not been considered.Socrates said:
It's a fair point I hadn't considered.rcs1000 said:@Socrates
Factual correction from me: there are 2.7m people in Jamaica, not 2m. Nevertheless, the approx 20-1 ratio is about right.
So even if we go for your middle-way position: why hasn't it been done yet? It's so painfully obvious that it would be politically supported if we only removed the rights from nations which were no longer reciprocal.
Shall we start a campaign? Hard to see why anyone would object to making our electoral system fairer :-)0 -
An expensive one. In which only the better off can stay at the Euston Travelodge.AndyJS said:What sort of world are we living in where a single room at the Euston Travelodge regularly goes for £200?
0 -
@GeorgeWParker: More Darling interview: Why he's leaving and why Ed M should promise to borrow more - for transport and homes http://t.co/xYUh7cUWHVFrancisUrquhart said:Darling going, that's the end of any slim chance of a sensible grown up chancellor after the next GE. More Brownian economics will follow
0 -
Nevertheless, as British citizens in their countries do not get the vote, it seems bizarre that citizens of - say - India to get the vote in the UK. If they wish to participate, and they are here then the path to citizenship is clear.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?0 -
Newsense FTW... oh... roflSimonStClare said:
Surprised at the news - he left that rather late to announce his departure.Scott_P said:@GeorgeWParker: Alistair Darling to step down as MP in 2015: FT exclusive interview
http://t.co/dP51DU1iEv
flags flying at half mast over a certain an Birkenhead off license?0 -
It may be populist but its a bonkers policy.Scott_P said:
@GeorgeWParker: More Darling interview: Why he's leaving and why Ed M should promise to borrow more - for transport and homes http://t.co/xYUh7cUWHVFrancisUrquhart said:Darling going, that's the end of any slim chance of a sensible grown up chancellor after the next GE. More Brownian economics will follow
0 -
tim needs to be placed on suicide watch with the state of the Labour party.Neil said:
A little bit of tim just died inside. Who will be the first to call the seat as a Tory gain...? Will you do the honours?Scott_P said:@GeorgeWParker: Alistair Darling to step down as MP in 2015: FT exclusive interview
http://t.co/dP51DU1iEv
0 -
Probably a highly discriminatory policy against those who arrive wanting a room at the door, those that book in advance, call, or book through somewhere else.anothernick said:
An expensive one. In which only the better off can stay at the Euston Travelodge.AndyJS said:What sort of world are we living in where a single room at the Euston Travelodge regularly goes for £200?
0 -
Tory majority at 6.4 on BF - longest its ever been.
Nutty!0 -
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?0 -
One of Potters Bar's famous residents. Sad news to hear.SquareRoot said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29874053
Acker Bilk has died aged 85
0 -
Oh Acker, gone to the Pearly Gates. RIP.SquareRoot said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29874053
Acker Bilk has died aged 85
0 -
I am probably the most "open" (re immigration) person on pb; but it seems to be me very clear: you need to choose to be a British citizen if you wish to participate in the British democratic process.Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?0 -
I dare say the right is now an anachronism. But the least of our worries...Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
"this is what comes of 'Empire Building'", Breaker Morant, 19800 -
The problem for SLAB is that they are profoundly split. About 1/3 of their membership and voters voted Yes. Murphy is anathema to these people. Murphy is by far the most serious candidate who has the greatest experience and the best intellect but there is a risk that a Labour party led by him might drive a significant proportion of the membership out.
Neil Findlay had a much, much lower profile on the referendum. So low I fact that I was not even aware of him. Will that make it easier for him to bind the wounds that SLAB has suffered? Maybe. But any Scottish politician who had so little to say on the biggest issue Scotland will ever face is not leadership material in my book.0 -
Another value bet IMO is 7.8 for the current Con/LD coalition continuing after GE2015:
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.1158785400 -
The Lab and Con prices should be at least reversed already. I reckon Con maj will go sub-3 at some point well before election night.AndyJS said:
Yes I think that probably represents value. At some stage on election night it's bound to come in to about 3 or 4 at least, offering cash out opportunities.RodCrosby said:Tory majority at 6.4 on BF - longest its ever been.
Nutty!0 -
Should they pay taxes to HM Exchequer?Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?0 -
That interpretation is unsupported by principle and authority. The policy of s. 1 is to protect foreign government from terrorists. 'In our judgment, in agreement with Mackay J, the terrorist legislation applies to countries which are governed by tyrants and dictators.' R v F [2007] QB 960, 972 (CACD), per Sir Igor Judge P. It would be absurd if those who fought for foreign governments were also caught by the ambit of the legislation. Then consider the point of law certified by the Court of Appeal, which was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court in R v Gul [2013] 3 WLR 1207:Ishmael_X said:What you said was: "Those who fight for a foreign state are not terrorists within the meaning of s. 1 of the 2000 Act. Those who fight against a state are." There is no exemption for acts done "under the colour of public authority" and therefore nothing to exempt a jihadist who enlists in a foreign army in order to participate in an ethnic or sectarian civil war, and in fact fights in that war.
Does the definition of terrorism in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 operate so as to include within its scope any or all military attacks by a non-state armed group against any or all state or inter-governmental organisation armed forces in the context of a non-international armed conflict? [My emphasis]
Although Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC and Lord Judge CJ (giving the judgment of the court) came to no concluded view, they stated (at 1217) that:[T]he definition would seem to cover any violence or damage to property if it is carried out with a view to influencing a government or IGO in order to advance a very wide range of causes. Thus, it would appear to extend to military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government, even where that activity is approved (officially or unofficially) by the UK Government.
The policy of the Act is thus clearly to protect foreign governments from terrorism, and accordingly, it is unlikely in the extreme that s. 1 extends to the suppression of terrorism by a state within its own jurisdiction.0 -
AndyJS said:
Yes I think that probably represents value. At some stage on election night it's bound to come in to about 3 or 4 at least, offering cash out opportunities.RodCrosby said:Tory majority at 6.4 on BF - longest its ever been.
Nutty!
Given the high likelihood the LibDems are on sub 20 seats (and quite possibly a dozen or less), I'm not sure that's valueAndyJS said:Another value bet IMO is 7.8 for the current Con/LD coalition continuing after GE2015:
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.1158785400 -
They get to vote in the UK because of the Commonwealth.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, as British citizens in their countries do not get the vote, it seems bizarre that citizens of - say - India to get the vote in the UK. If they wish to participate, and they are here then the path to citizenship is clear.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?0 -
That's right!RodCrosby said:
Because she's also a Commonwealth Citizen.Sunil_Prasannan said:My Mum is an Indian Citizen with Indefinite Leave to Remain. She is eligibubble to vote at GEs.
0 -
Ooohhh... I like your idea. I'd be interesting in swapping my vote for 0% income taxes...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Should they pay taxes to HM Exchequer?Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?0 -
And where reciprocal rights exist, I would continue to allow commonwealth citizens to have the vote.Sunil_Prasannan said:
They get to vote in the UK because of the Commonwealth.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, as British citizens in their countries do not get the vote, it seems bizarre that citizens of - say - India to get the vote in the UK. If they wish to participate, and they are here then the path to citizenship is clear.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?0 -
God even he has gone bonkers...Maybe too much time spent with Gordo, he is now suffering from some sort of Stockholm Syndrome.Scott_P said:
@GeorgeWParker: More Darling interview: Why he's leaving and why Ed M should promise to borrow more - for transport and homes http://t.co/xYUh7cUWHVFrancisUrquhart said:Darling going, that's the end of any slim chance of a sensible grown up chancellor after the next GE. More Brownian economics will follow
0 -
Janice Atkinson selected by UKIP to contest Folkestone & Hythe:
http://www.folkestoneherald.co.uk/Ukip-choose-Janice-Atkinson-fight-Tories-general/story-23944505-detail/story.html0 -
Janice Atkinson did get into a spot of bother a couple of months ago:
http://www.folkestoneherald.co.uk/Ukip-s-Janice-Atkinson-apologises-calling-Thai/story-22767110-detail/story.html0 -
Breaker Morant is a very interesting film.RodCrosby said:
I dare say the right is now an anachronism. But the least of our worries...Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
"this is what comes of 'Empire Building'", Breaker Morant, 1980
I am not sure that a contemporary version would suggest that shooting surrendered prisoners was anything other than a warcrime.0 -
The original plan may have been that Darling would return south after leading a triumphant Better Together campaign, and usurp Balls as Labour Chancellor and perhaps even Miliband as leader and next Prime Minister.SimonStClare said:
Surprised at the news - he left that rather late to announce his departure.Scott_P said:@GeorgeWParker: Alistair Darling to step down as MP in 2015: FT exclusive interview
http://t.co/dP51DU1iEv
flags flying at half mast over a certain an Birkenhead off license?
But Indyref did not pan out as expected. leaving Darling with nowhere to go: not even SLAB leader.0 -
Luckily, you're not in chargercs1000 said:
And where reciprocal rights exist, I would continue to allow commonwealth citizens to have the vote.Sunil_Prasannan said:
They get to vote in the UK because of the Commonwealth.rcs1000 said:
Nevertheless, as British citizens in their countries do not get the vote, it seems bizarre that citizens of - say - India to get the vote in the UK. If they wish to participate, and they are here then the path to citizenship is clear.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
0 -
Angela Merkel appears to be calling our bluff: free movement or Brexit.
Angela Merkel 'would accept UK exit from EU to protect migration laws'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-298743920 -
No Taxation without Representation!rcs1000 said:
Ooohhh... I like your idea. I'd be interesting in swapping my vote for 0% income taxes...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Should they pay taxes to HM Exchequer?Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?0 -
Murray Sackwild selected as Green candidate for Harlow:
http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/Green-Party-select-candidate-Harlow-General/story-23844618-detail/story.html0 -
Don't bring Obama into this .... on either side!Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?0 -
Although the Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC and Lord Judge CJ (giving the judgment of the court) came to no concluded view, they stated (at 1217) that:Life_ina_market_town said:
That interpretation is unsupported by principle and authority. The policy of s. 1 is to protect foreign government from terrorists. 'In our judgment, in agreement with Mackay J, the terrorist legislation applies to countries which are governed by tyrants and dictators.' R v F [2007] QB 960, 972 (CACD), per Sir Igor Judge P. It would be absurd if those who fought for foreign governments were also caught by the ambit of the legislation. Then consider the point of law certified by the Court of Appeal, which was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court in R v Gul [2013] 3 WLR 1207:Ishmael_X said:What you said was: "Those who fight for a foreign state are not terrorists within the meaning of s. 1 of the 2000 Act. Those who fight against a state are." There is no exemption for acts done "under the colour of public authority" and therefore nothing to exempt a jihadist who enlists in a foreign army in order to participate in an ethnic or sectarian civil war, and in fact fights in that war.
Does the definition of terrorism in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 operate so as to include within its scope any or all military attacks by a non-state armed group against any or all state or inter-governmental organisation armed forces in the context of a non-international armed conflict? [My emphasis]
[T]he definition would seem to cover any violence or damage to property if it is carried out with a view to influencing a government or IGO in order to advance a very wide range of causes. Thus, it would appear to extend to military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government, even where that activity is approved (officially or unofficially) by the UK Government.
The policy of the Act is thus clearly to protect foreign governments from terrorism, and accordingly, it is unlikely in the extreme that s. 1 extends to the suppression of terrorism by a state within its own jurisdiction.
Would appear to hinge on the definition of "government" or "state".
For example, what would be the status of someone who went to fight for Hamas in Gaza?0 -
Surely she's at the bluffing part, rather than the calling part?DecrepitJohnL said:Angela Merkel appears to be calling our bluff: free movement or Brexit.
Angela Merkel 'would accept UK exit from EU to protect migration laws'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392
No 10 has said a points system for EU migration if they're going to be hard-line about it, and an emergency brake if they're going to be more softly-softly about it. For them to not even do the latter would just look weak now. Especially as three quarter of the public think we should do it even if the EU doesn't agree. Is Cameron really going to be the British Prime Minister that has to take orders from the German Chancellor on controlling this country's borders? Churchill would be rolling over in his grave.0 -
Of course people from Greece are just as much "foreigners" as Mexicans.JohnLilburne said:
No taxation without representation? I would prefer French people living here to be able to vote rather than British people who move abroad. they should lose the right after say 5 years.Morris_Dancer said:Why should foreigners inherit a right to vote here? What's the rationale?
EU citizens are not really "foreigners", not in the same way as a Somali or a Mexican, to use two random examples. If we extend the right to Commonwealth citizens, why not citizens of EU countries with which we have a closer economic and political association?
EU freedom of movement should IMO include the right to vote in national elections after say 5 years' residence.
They both come from foreign countries. What's the difference?
0 -
Yes, that's the start of the naturalisation process. After they've paid in for a number of years, they can get the vote one day if they complete the process.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Should they pay taxes to HM Exchequer?Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
And before you cry no taxation without representation, that referred to geographies, not individuals.0 -
Cameron appears to be backing himself into a corner. Abandoning his carefully crafted argument on revising migration rights within the EU for a wholesale reform that will never happen he appears to leave no other option than to declare the eventual outcome of his negotiation a failure and having to campaign for 'out' when he doesnt appear to want that outcome.DecrepitJohnL said:Angela Merkel appears to be calling our bluff: free movement or Brexit.
Angela Merkel 'would accept UK exit from EU to protect migration laws'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392
0 -
You must be a child. you have no idea what you are talking aboutAndyJS said:
Yes I think that probably represents value. At some stage on election night it's bound to come in to about 3 or 4 at least, offering cash out opportunities.RodCrosby said:Tory majority at 6.4 on BF - longest its ever been.
Nutty!-1 -
He seems to be making more adult posts than you are.Poppett said:
You must be a child. you have no idea what you are talking aboutAndyJS said:
Yes I think that probably represents value. At some stage on election night it's bound to come in to about 3 or 4 at least, offering cash out opportunities.RodCrosby said:Tory majority at 6.4 on BF - longest its ever been.
Nutty!0 -
Talking of electoral changes, I see parliament has voted 90% to reject recall elections. How self-serving MPs are.0
-
That is a matter for the executive not for the courts. A certificate of the Secretary of State would be conclusive evidence of the what constituted the government of a foreign state.RodCrosby said:Would appear to hinge on the definition of "government" or "state".
For example, what would be the status of someone who went to fight for Hamas in Gaza?0 -
A child that is very good at Excel spread sheets too.Poppett said:
You must be a child. you have no idea what you are talking aboutAndyJS said:
Yes I think that probably represents value. At some stage on election night it's bound to come in to about 3 or 4 at least, offering cash out opportunities.RodCrosby said:Tory majority at 6.4 on BF - longest its ever been.
Nutty!0 -
There's an article in today's Sunday Times about some French bloke who lives in London and has written some book about life in this country.
To paraphrase CLR James, "what do they know of England who only London know".
0 -
AndyJS must be one of the most useful contributors to pbc out there. You?Poppett said:
You must be a child. you have no idea what you are talking aboutAndyJS said:
Yes I think that probably represents value. At some stage on election night it's bound to come in to about 3 or 4 at least, offering cash out opportunities.RodCrosby said:Tory majority at 6.4 on BF - longest its ever been.
Nutty!
0 -
Why do you say that?Poppett said:
You must be a child. you have no idea what you are talking aboutAndyJS said:
Yes I think that probably represents value. At some stage on election night it's bound to come in to about 3 or 4 at least, offering cash out opportunities.RodCrosby said:Tory majority at 6.4 on BF - longest its ever been.
Nutty!0 -
Most things in war become "crimes" when analysed by lawyers in comfy armchairs.foxinsoxuk said:
Breaker Morant is a very interesting film.RodCrosby said:
I dare say the right is now an anachronism. But the least of our worries...Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
"this is what comes of 'Empire Building'", Breaker Morant, 1980
I am not sure that a contemporary version would suggest that shooting surrendered prisoners was anything other than a warcrime.
Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf. George Orwell - Notes on Nationalism
0 -
Kipling, originally: "what do they know of England who only England know." James changed it to "cricket".another_richard said:There's an article in today's Sunday Times about some French bloke who lives in London and has written some book about life in this country.
To paraphrase CLR James, "what do they know of England who only London know".
0 -
I'd second that opinion of AndyJS every day of the week.Neil said:
AndyJS must be one of the most useful contributors to pbc out there. You?Poppett said:
You must be a child. you have no idea what you are talking aboutAndyJS said:
Yes I think that probably represents value. At some stage on election night it's bound to come in to about 3 or 4 at least, offering cash out opportunities.RodCrosby said:Tory majority at 6.4 on BF - longest its ever been.
Nutty!0 -
Considering the state of the Scottish NHS right now, and the fact that Neil Findlay held the Shadow health brief for Labour..... That he has managed to remain totally under the radar to Scots political anoraks like ourselves speaks volumes about how nondescript his performance has been at Holyrood. This is not someone who is going to suddenly set the heather alight and take the fight to the SNP between now and 2016. Like Ed Miliband, he is the Unions anyone but the other guy choice, and that is going to undermine him from the start whether he wins or not.DavidL said:
The problem for SLAB is that they are profoundly split. About 1/3 of their membership and voters voted Yes. Murphy is anathema to these people. Murphy is by far the most serious candidate who has the greatest experience and the best intellect but there is a risk that a Labour party led by him might drive a significant proportion of the membership out.
Neil Findlay had a much, much lower profile on the referendum. So low I fact that I was not even aware of him. Will that make it easier for him to bind the wounds that SLAB has suffered? Maybe. But any Scottish politician who had so little to say on the biggest issue Scotland will ever face is not leadership material in my book.0 -
Evening all and I gather I was correct and now Alistair Darling is standing down.
Rumblings today among many SLAB folks on Twitter about bias by the Labour Broadcasting Corporation in favour of the "official" party candidate Jim Murphy. A wonderful time to be a Scottish Tory.0 -
Thanks, although I think I'm not much good at the sort of in-depth analysis that forms the mainstay of the site. I'm too lazy to write long contributions.GeoffM said:
I'd second that opinion of AndyJS every day of the week.Neil said:
AndyJS must be one of the most useful contributors to pbc out there. You?Poppett said:
You must be a child. you have no idea what you are talking aboutAndyJS said:
Yes I think that probably represents value. At some stage on election night it's bound to come in to about 3 or 4 at least, offering cash out opportunities.RodCrosby said:Tory majority at 6.4 on BF - longest its ever been.
Nutty!0 -
Why are individuals less important than geographies?Socrates said:
Yes, that's the start of the naturalisation process. After they've paid in for a number of years, they can get the vote one day if they complete the process.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Should they pay taxes to HM Exchequer?Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
And before you cry no taxation without representation, that referred to geographies, not individuals.0 -
You might be surprised that the treatment of franc-tireurs (partisans) was not settled from the Hague Convention (1899) through to the Nuremberg Trials (1945-1948), and their summary execution was, in certain circumstances, deemed permissable...foxinsoxuk said:
Breaker Morant is a very interesting film.RodCrosby said:
I dare say the right is now an anachronism. But the least of our worries...Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
"this is what comes of 'Empire Building'", Breaker Morant, 1980
I am not sure that a contemporary version would suggest that shooting surrendered prisoners was anything other than a warcrime.
0 -
Although Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC and Lord Judge CJ (giving the judgment of the court) came to no concluded view, they stated (at 1217) that:Life_ina_market_town said:
That interpretation is unsupported by principle and authority. The policy of s. 1 is to protect foreign government from terrorists. 'In our judgment, in agreement with Mackay J, the terrorist legislation applies to countries which are governed by tyrants and dictators.' R v F [2007] QB 960, 972 (CACD), per Sir Igor Judge P. It would be absurd if those who fought for foreign governments were also caught by the ambit of the legislation. Then consider the point of law certified by the Court of Appeal, which was answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court in R v Gul [2013] 3 WLR 1207:Ishmael_X said:What you said was: "Those who fight for a foreign state are not terrorists within the meaning of s. 1 of the 2000 Act. Those who fight against a state are." There is no exemption for acts done "under the colour of public authority" and therefore nothing to exempt a jihadist who enlists in a foreign army in order to participate in an ethnic or sectarian civil war, and in fact fights in that war.
Does the definition of terrorism in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 operate so as to include within its scope any or all military attacks by a non-state armed group against any or all state or inter-governmental organisation armed forces in the context of a non-international armed conflict? [My emphasis]
[T]he definition would seem to cover any violence or damage to property if it is carried out with a view to influencing a government or IGO in order to advance a very wide range of causes. Thus, it would appear to extend to military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government, even where that activity is approved (officially or unofficially) by the UK Government.
The policy of the Act is thus clearly to protect foreign governments from terrorism, and accordingly, it is unlikely in the extreme that s. 1 extends to the suppression of terrorism by a state within its own jurisdiction.
If firearms and explosives are involved, as they usually are in military actions these days, the limitation "with a view to influencing a government or IGO" goes out of the window (TA 2000 s. 1(3)), which nullifies what is in any case a very weak argument trying to extract limitations to the ambit of the act from a passage stating the breadth of its ambit. Statutes mean what they say. And I am talking about state persecution of minorities, not the suppression of terrorism.
0 -
They would definitely make an interesting read. I am not in the least bit surprised that Darling is standing down at the next GE, I think that he only left it this long to announce it because he wanted to concentrate on the Indy Referendum.Scott_P said:
I wonder when Darling's memoirs will be released..?
0 -
The Guardian piece suggests (referring to a Times article!) Mr Cameron is revising his rhetoric.Neil said:
Cameron appears to be backing himself into a corner. Abandoning his carefully crafted argument on revising migration rights within the EU for a wholesale reform that will never happen he appears to leave no other option than to declare the eventual outcome of his negotiation a failure and having to campaign for 'out' when he doesnt appear to want that outcome.DecrepitJohnL said:Angela Merkel appears to be calling our bluff: free movement or Brexit.
Angela Merkel 'would accept UK exit from EU to protect migration laws'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392
"Over the weekend, the Sunday Times also reported that the prime minister has dropped plans for quotas in a bid to placate the Germans and that Cameron is now looking at whether the government can ask EU immigrants to leave the country unless they can support themselves within three months of arriving in the UK."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/02/angela-merkel-warns-david-cameron-german-chancellor-uk-prime-minister-unskilled-migrants
0 -
I think shooting surrendered prisoners (which Morant did on several occasions) was more than a little disapproved of, even before the Geneva convention.GeoffM said:
Most things in war become "crimes" when analysed by lawyers in comfy armchairs.foxinsoxuk said:
Breaker Morant is a very interesting film.RodCrosby said:
I dare say the right is now an anachronism. But the least of our worries...Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
"this is what comes of 'Empire Building'", Breaker Morant, 1980
I am not sure that a contemporary version would suggest that shooting surrendered prisoners was anything other than a warcrime.
Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf. George Orwell - Notes on Nationalism
But I agree. War is hell, and to try to apply the law in the same way as civilian life is not fitting. Though those who give no quarter should expect no quarter.0 -
Oh there's no doubt he wont get what he was talking about. How long he takes to realise / admit that doesnt change the size of the corner he has painted himself into.anotherDave said:
The Guardian piece suggests (referring to a Times article!) Mr Cameron is revising his rhetoric.Neil said:
Cameron appears to be backing himself into a corner. Abandoning his carefully crafted argument on revising migration rights within the EU for a wholesale reform that will never happen he appears to leave no other option than to declare the eventual outcome of his negotiation a failure and having to campaign for 'out' when he doesnt appear to want that outcome.DecrepitJohnL said:Angela Merkel appears to be calling our bluff: free movement or Brexit.
Angela Merkel 'would accept UK exit from EU to protect migration laws'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392
"Over the weekend, the Sunday Times also reported that the prime minister has dropped plans for quotas in a bid to placate the Germans and that Cameron is now looking at whether the government can ask EU immigrants to leave the country unless they can support themselves within three months of arriving in the UK."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/02/angela-merkel-warns-david-cameron-german-chancellor-uk-prime-minister-unskilled-migrants0 -
Oh yeah that one's gonna work when his dysfunctional Home Office is losing immigrants hand over fist:anotherDave said:
The Guardian piece suggests (referring to a Times article!) Mr Cameron is revising his rhetoric.Neil said:
Cameron appears to be backing himself into a corner. Abandoning his carefully crafted argument on revising migration rights within the EU for a wholesale reform that will never happen he appears to leave no other option than to declare the eventual outcome of his negotiation a failure and having to campaign for 'out' when he doesnt appear to want that outcome.DecrepitJohnL said:Angela Merkel appears to be calling our bluff: free movement or Brexit.
Angela Merkel 'would accept UK exit from EU to protect migration laws'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392
"Over the weekend, the Sunday Times also reported that the prime minister has dropped plans for quotas in a bid to placate the Germans and that Cameron is now looking at whether the government can ask EU immigrants to leave the country unless they can support themselves within three months of arriving in the UK."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/02/angela-merkel-warns-david-cameron-german-chancellor-uk-prime-minister-unskilled-migrants
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2811821/Immigration-mess-UK-El-Dorado-migrants-says-mayor-Calais-ll-never-control-borders-EU-claims-minister-50-000-Britain-illegally-missing-says-damning-report.html
0 -
I suppose that falls to the question of whether the Boer Commandos were partisans, or were the army of a state.RodCrosby said:
You might be surprised that the treatment of franc-tireurs (partisans) was not settled from the Hague Convention (1899) through to the Nuremberg Trials (1945-1948), and their summary execution was, in certain circumstances, deemed permissable...foxinsoxuk said:
Breaker Morant is a very interesting film.RodCrosby said:
I dare say the right is now an anachronism. But the least of our worries...Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
"this is what comes of 'Empire Building'", Breaker Morant, 1980
I am not sure that a contemporary version would suggest that shooting surrendered prisoners was anything other than a warcrime.0 -
"We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans..."RodCrosby said:
You might be surprised that the treatment of franc-tireurs (partisans) was not settled from the Hague Convention (1899) through to the Nuremberg Trials (1945-1948), and their summary execution was, in certain circumstances, deemed permissable...foxinsoxuk said:
Breaker Morant is a very interesting film.RodCrosby said:
I dare say the right is now an anachronism. But the least of our worries...Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
"this is what comes of 'Empire Building'", Breaker Morant, 1980
I am not sure that a contemporary version would suggest that shooting surrendered prisoners was anything other than a warcrime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostages_Trial0 -
It's ridiculous that the Conservatives don't seem to have put any effort into their proposed EU renegotiation.Neil said:
Oh there's no doubt he wont get what he was talking about. How long he takes to realise / admit that doesnt change the size of the corner he has painted himself into.anotherDave said:
The Guardian piece suggests (referring to a Times article!) Mr Cameron is revising his rhetoric.Neil said:
Cameron appears to be backing himself into a corner. Abandoning his carefully crafted argument on revising migration rights within the EU for a wholesale reform that will never happen he appears to leave no other option than to declare the eventual outcome of his negotiation a failure and having to campaign for 'out' when he doesnt appear to want that outcome.DecrepitJohnL said:Angela Merkel appears to be calling our bluff: free movement or Brexit.
Angela Merkel 'would accept UK exit from EU to protect migration laws'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392
"Over the weekend, the Sunday Times also reported that the prime minister has dropped plans for quotas in a bid to placate the Germans and that Cameron is now looking at whether the government can ask EU immigrants to leave the country unless they can support themselves within three months of arriving in the UK."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/02/angela-merkel-warns-david-cameron-german-chancellor-uk-prime-minister-unskilled-migrants
They should know by now what powers, if any, they want repatriated.0 -
That is easy.anotherDave said:
It's ridiculous that the Conservatives don't seem to have put any effort into their proposed EU renegotiation.Neil said:
Oh there's no doubt he wont get what he was talking about. How long he takes to realise / admit that doesnt change the size of the corner he has painted himself into.anotherDave said:
The Guardian piece suggests (referring to a Times article!) Mr Cameron is revising his rhetoric.Neil said:
Cameron appears to be backing himself into a corner. Abandoning his carefully crafted argument on revising migration rights within the EU for a wholesale reform that will never happen he appears to leave no other option than to declare the eventual outcome of his negotiation a failure and having to campaign for 'out' when he doesnt appear to want that outcome.DecrepitJohnL said:Angela Merkel appears to be calling our bluff: free movement or Brexit.
Angela Merkel 'would accept UK exit from EU to protect migration laws'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392
"Over the weekend, the Sunday Times also reported that the prime minister has dropped plans for quotas in a bid to placate the Germans and that Cameron is now looking at whether the government can ask EU immigrants to leave the country unless they can support themselves within three months of arriving in the UK."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/02/angela-merkel-warns-david-cameron-german-chancellor-uk-prime-minister-unskilled-migrants
They should know by now what powers, if any, they want repatriated.
None.0 -
However, it appears Darling is not planning to leave frontline politics for good – he believes that a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU is now inevitable, regardless of who wins in 2015, and wants to use the insights he gained from Better Together to campaign for an in vote.
http://labourlist.org/2014/11/former-chancellor-alistair-darling-to-retire-in-2015/0 -
"It's a new kind of war, George. A new war for a new century. I suppose this is the first time the enemy hasn't been in uniform. They're farmers. They come from small villages, and they shoot at us from behind walls and from farmhouses. Some of them are women, some of them are children, and some of them... are missionaries, George." Breaker Morant, 1980foxinsoxuk said:
I suppose that falls to the question of whether the Boer Commandos were partisans, or were the army of a state.RodCrosby said:
You might be surprised that the treatment of franc-tireurs (partisans) was not settled from the Hague Convention (1899) through to the Nuremberg Trials (1945-1948), and their summary execution was, in certain circumstances, deemed permissable...foxinsoxuk said:
Breaker Morant is a very interesting film.RodCrosby said:
I dare say the right is now an anachronism. But the least of our worries...Socrates said:
So they've chosen not to integrate. Fine, if that's their choice, but then they shouldn't get decision making power in the future of our nation.RodCrosby said:
Under our law they don't need it.rcs1000 said:
But they have not chosen to become British citizens. If they wished to participate in the democratic process, they could apply for - and easily attain - British citizenship.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If they have Indefinite Leave to Remain, they should be eligible to vote.Socrates said:
Suppose you're an American citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years? Why should they be placed behind, say, Kenyans?Sunil_Prasannan said:
Suppose you're a Commonwealth citizen who's paid taxes to HM Exchequer for years?
"this is what comes of 'Empire Building'", Breaker Morant, 1980
I am not sure that a contemporary version would suggest that shooting surrendered prisoners was anything other than a warcrime.
0 -
'A great undertaking, but nobody to know what it is.'anotherDave said:
It's ridiculous that the Conservatives don't seem to have put any effort into their proposed EU renegotiation.Neil said:
Oh there's no doubt he wont get what he was talking about. How long he takes to realise / admit that doesnt change the size of the corner he has painted himself into.anotherDave said:
The Guardian piece suggests (referring to a Times article!) Mr Cameron is revising his rhetoric.Neil said:
Cameron appears to be backing himself into a corner. Abandoning his carefully crafted argument on revising migration rights within the EU for a wholesale reform that will never happen he appears to leave no other option than to declare the eventual outcome of his negotiation a failure and having to campaign for 'out' when he doesnt appear to want that outcome.DecrepitJohnL said:Angela Merkel appears to be calling our bluff: free movement or Brexit.
Angela Merkel 'would accept UK exit from EU to protect migration laws'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392
"Over the weekend, the Sunday Times also reported that the prime minister has dropped plans for quotas in a bid to placate the Germans and that Cameron is now looking at whether the government can ask EU immigrants to leave the country unless they can support themselves within three months of arriving in the UK."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/02/angela-merkel-warns-david-cameron-german-chancellor-uk-prime-minister-unskilled-migrants
They should know by now what powers, if any, they want repatriated.
0 -
Of course he wouldn't.Freggles said:So Alex Salmond says the SNP won't go into coalition with the Tories, possibly Labour, but most likely will extract the maximum possible from the government either way
The SNP will want super devo max. They will get it by voting in support of English Laws for English Votes. The Tories and UKIP would both willingly do that deal. NI and the Welsh Nats likewise if they are cut in.
It won't be a coalition - it will be a deal to carve the UK up.
The only people who really don't want any of it are Labour, though even then Welsh Labour might like it.
0 -
http://labourlist.org/2014/11/former-chancellor-alistair-darling-to-retire-in-2015/Scott_P said:However, it appears Darling is not planning to leave frontline politics for good – he believes that a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU is now inevitable, regardless of who wins in 2015, and wants to use the insights he gained from Better Together to campaign for an in vote.
Darling's insights seem to be earned at rather high cost to everyone else.0 -
On the scottish issue I think that the SNP is going to win almost every scottish seat that voted YES.
I have them gaining 26 seats (5 from the LD, 21 from Labour).
That puts Labour as largest party with around the same seats as the Tories in 2010, assuming the constituency polls in england & wales are accurate.
I think it is a possibility that Labour can't form a coalition with just the LD, and any coalition not involving a third party like the SNP or UKIP will not have the numbers to withstand by-election defeats.
The next government is set to be the weaker than Jim Callaghan's in the 70's.0 -
Good.DecrepitJohnL said:Angela Merkel appears to be calling our bluff: free movement or Brexit.
Angela Merkel 'would accept UK exit from EU to protect migration laws'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392
Hopefully we can depart this useless project without even having to go through a silly "re-negotiation" and referendum.
Farage may actually have to get off the gravy train soon. Who would have thunk it? :^O
0 -
I like all types of train - except gravy trainsGIN1138 said:
Good.DecrepitJohnL said:Angela Merkel appears to be calling our bluff: free movement or Brexit.
Angela Merkel 'would accept UK exit from EU to protect migration laws'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29874392
Hopefully we can depart this useless project without even having to go through a silly "re-negotiation" and referendum.
Farage may actually have to get off the gravy train soon. Who would have thunk it? :^O 0
This discussion has been closed.