I find people referring to each other as 'comrade' in this day and age downright weird.
It'd be like me referring to local property owners in my constituency Conservative Party meetings as 'my liege'.
There's a speech in which Chuka exclaims "Comrades!" in a way that absolutely can't be taken seriously. Can't find it on YouTube though.
"Comrades! This is your Captain! It is an honour to speak to you today! And I'm honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our Motherland's most recent achievement. And once more, we play our dangerous game. A game of chess... against our old adversary... the Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game... and played it well. But today, the game is different. WE have the advantage! It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Attlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations. Now they will tremble again - at the sound of our Progressiveness. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!
"Comrades! Our own Parliamentary Party don't know our full potential! They will do everything possible to test us, but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind! We will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! And when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... comradeship.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
Wasn't democracy in Athens limited to a relatively small class?
Of course, that is the fundamental problem with unfettered democracy - the majority can always vote to disenfranchise or rob a minority unless protections are in place in the Constitution (written or oral).
Corbyn and Sanders both believe it perfectly acceptable to tax the 'rich' at ever higher rates even against their wishes. Ultimately, how is taking someone's wealth different from taking their vote?
And we do disenfranchise classes of people. Prisoners, mentally impaired, non-citizens.
Personally, I think disenfranchising an individual based on religion is both unethical and unconstitutional (at least in the US) and it would destabilize society to the detriment of all. It could never pass the Supreme Court. But if it were constitutional, it would not necessarily be undemocratic.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
Wasn't democracy in Athens limited to a relatively small class?
Of course, that is the fundamental problem with unfettered democracy - the majority can always vote to disenfranchise or rob a minority unless protections are in place in the Constitution (written or oral).
Corbyn and Sanders both believe it perfectly acceptable to tax the 'rich' at ever higher rates even against their wishes. Ultimately, how is taking someone's wealth different from taking their vote?
And we do disenfranchise classes of people. Prisoners, mentally impaired, non-citizens.
Personally, I think disenfranchising an individual based on religion is both unethical and unconstitutional (at least in the US) and it would destabilize society to the detriment of all. It could never pass the Supreme Court. But if it were constitutional, it would not necessarily be undemocratic.
Muslim aliens can be barred, muslim US citizens can't be. Quite sure that is the 'constitutional' position.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Trump would probably have to change the US constitution before banning Muslim immigration. I doubt if he could do that, even if he won a Presidential election.
Would it definitely? Previous case law I believe would be that the First Amendment doesn't apply to non-citizens outside of the USA. See for example the Chinese Exclusion Act cases.
That was 19th century but I can't think of any 20th let alone 21st century parallels to what Trump is proposing.
If the Muslim were a US citizen, I'm pretty confident that any ban on their entering the USA would be unconstitutional.
I agree that there would be more dispute if the ban was restricted to non-citizens.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
That would definitely violate the First Amendment.
And if two-thirds of Americans decided that Muslims shouldn't have the vote, and modified the constitution, would that be OK?
Mr. T, aye. Wealthy, male, over 30, free (mind you, slaves had more problems than not being able to vote), I think.
Mind you, that same democratic approach led to them killing most of their successful war leaders after some naval setbacks, which may well have lost them the Peloponnesian War to Sparta.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Trump would probably have to change the US constitution before banning Muslim immigration. I doubt if he could do that, even if he won a Presidential election.
Would it definitely? Previous case law I believe would be that the First Amendment doesn't apply to non-citizens outside of the USA. See for example the Chinese Exclusion Act cases.
That was 19th century but I can't think of any 20th let alone 21st century parallels to what Trump is proposing.
If the Muslim were a US citizen, I'm pretty confident that any ban on their entering the USA would be unconstitutional.
I agree that there would be more dispute if the ban was imposed on non-citizens.
If the Muslim were a US citizen then they wouldn't be an immigrant.
Again going back to the Chinese Exclusion Act case history that was the distinction the Supreme Court made. A citizen is protected by the constitution so can come and go as they please without discrimination but a non-citizen migrant can be restricted by Congress.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
That is why there are constitutions to place limits on what even the sovereign (whether the President or the people can do). The debate about the proper balance between the results of elections and constraints on what can be done is a very interesting one e.g. as in the arguments we have here about human rights and the courts overturning executive acts and the will of Parliament on the basis of higher law, expressed as human rights.
I would argue that a democracy which does not allow categories of people to vote, save in very few and exceptional circumstances, is fast on the road to not being a democracy at all.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
That would definitely violate the First Amendment.
And if two-thirds of Americans decided that Muslims shouldn't have the vote, and modified the constitution, would that be OK?
Unfortunately yes.
With regards to an immigration ban (which is not what has been proposed) that isn't unconstitutional as the constitution doesn't cover overseas non-citizens.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
It wouldn't be against immigrants, it is against Muslims, including American citizens.
So under Trump's plan, an American Army Officer who is serving in Afghanistan would't be allowed back into the USA.
The ACLU will have so much fun with that.
It's not against American Citizens. And he mulled a temporary ban in any case.
"Donald J Trump calls for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
"Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,"
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
That would definitely violate the First Amendment.
And maybe the 15th?
And the unamended constitution forbids religious tests for office (is being a voter an "office"?)
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
That would definitely violate the First Amendment.
And if two-thirds of Americans decided that Muslims shouldn't have the vote, and modified the constitution, would that be OK?
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
That would definitely violate the First Amendment.
And if two-thirds of Americans decided that Muslims shouldn't have the vote, and modified the constitution, would that be OK?
OK? No.
Constitutional*? Yes.
* It's two thirds of states etc not Americans but I assume that's your point ...
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
It wouldn't be against immigrants, it is against Muslims, including American citizens.
So under Trump's plan, an American Army Officer who is serving in Afghanistan would't be allowed back into the USA.
The ACLU will have so much fun with that.
I know that. The question put to me was about immigration. That is why I replied as I did. (I know: lawyers - such pedants!!)
Personally, I think Trump's proposal is bonkers. If you're trying to eliminate or reduce a risk you want to be focused not use a blunderbuss which will likely blow your own feet off.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
That would definitely violate the First Amendment.
And if two-thirds of Americans decided that Muslims shouldn't have the vote, and modified the constitution, would that be OK?
Not for me it wouldn't, but that's not the point. Either you have democracy or you don't.
There are going to be a lot of questions like this over the decades to come.
For example, by virtue of the excellent video on population you linked to several days ago, by 2100 it is likely that global human population will be 11 billion+ (plateau point) with 5 billion in Asia and 4 billion in Africa, and only 1 billion in Europe and the Americas.
Those continents are also where the vast majority of Whites will be who are likely to be in an ethnic minority virtually everywhere, on current trends.
The politics of that will have to be handled very carefully. And that means separating (absolutely) culture/values and race.
Your Sean Connery reworkings are most entertaining. I watched Hunt for Red October on Dave recently and during that scene I kept thinking of your different versions,
I find people referring to each other as 'comrade' in this day and age downright weird.
It'd be like me referring to local property owners in my constituency Conservative Party meetings as 'my liege'.
There's a speech in which Chuka exclaims "Comrades!" in a way that absolutely can't be taken seriously. Can't find it on YouTube though.
"Comrades! This is your Captain! It is an honour to speak to you today! And I'm honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our Motherland's most recent achievement. And once more, we play our dangerous game. A game of chess... against our old adversary... the Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game... and played it well. But today, the game is different. WE have the advantage! It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Attlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations. Now they will tremble again - at the sound of our Progressiveness. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!
"Comrades! Our own Parliamentary Party don't know our full potential! They will do everything possible to test us, but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind! We will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! And when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... comradeship.
Employers can read their employees' private messages where those messages are sent over the internet during office hours, judges at the European Court of Human Rights have ruled.
Judges ruled that a company which had read an employee's messages sent via Yahoo Messenger while he was at work was within its rights to do so.
I am surprised that this is news. Employers have been reading employees work email since forever, no?
Most sensible employers will stop employees using systems like Yahoo and others. Of course, anything you write on your employer's email or other communications systems can be monitored by the employer though most are sensible e.g. not concerned with your email to your husband about turning up on time for the school play.
Yebbut what about more important matters like using pb.com during office hours?
It's downtime. I am usually working when others are eating/socialising and sleeping.
Unfortunately our benefits system is not fit for purpose after decades of drift and neglect. When the rest of Europe was moving to partially or wholly contributory unemployment insurance Labour were proudly boasting and telling the world about our universal welfare system. The coalition did little to change it and now Universal Credit is just as bad with some in-work and some out-of-work elements as well as a continuation of stupid stuff like housing benefits and top ups.
UC may be a single payment but it is still a nightmarish web of means testing form filling. I would love to see us move to the Swiss system, even if it is only for new entrants, as in - from this day the benefits system is going to be contributory and will require a minimum of 12 months contribution of NI to qualify for 12 months of support at 80% of your previous wage. From that day immigration of non-working people, people who work part time to claim working tax credits and people who have loads of children to claim child tax credits would not be able to make it here. They would have to go back after expending their cash unless they found a job that paid them enough to cover their rent, council tax, childcare costs and living expenses. People who come to do minimum wage jobs then get a bunch of WTC would find themselves bankrupt within months.
I think it's helpful to think of all these things in monetary terms, and to remember everthing is a curve. If you offered one million dollars a year to people if they'd come and live in the UK, you'd find approximately five billion people trying to squeeze into the UK. By contrast, if you charged everybody one million dollars a year, practically everyone would leave.
For every dollar you move the number, you lose a certain number of possible immigrants (or emigrants). You want to maximise freedom, while simultaneously maximising the welfare of British citizens. That would seem to me that - at a very minimum - you do not subsidise people coming to the UK via the benefit system, and possibly you charge people for access to other government services in one way or another.
One thing I do fundamentally believe in, though, is that the market is the best way to decide these things. I.e., we choose a price that immigrants should pay, rather than create a bureacracy and attempt to fit people into microcategories. Better to have a price and let people decide.
Top trolling by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury
@GregHands: Once again at #PMQs today no LibDem questioner and only 2 out of their 8 MPs even there. I think they need to show more commitment.
The Lib Dem MPs have about a 1 in 70 chance of being called - in other words about every seventh week at PMQs. I think you will find a very different picture in the Lords.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
That would definitely violate the First Amendment.
And if two-thirds of Americans decided that Muslims shouldn't have the vote, and modified the constitution, would that be OK?
Not for me it wouldn't, but that's not the point. Either you have democracy or you don't.
There are going to be a lot of questions like this over the decades to come.
For example, by virtue of the excellent video on population you linked to several days ago, by 2100 it is likely that global human population will be 11 billion+ (plateau point) with 5 billion in Asia and 4 billion in Africa, and only 1 billion in Europe and the Americas.
Those continents are also where the vast majority of Whites will be who are likely to be in an ethnic minority virtually everywhere, on current trends.
The politics of that will have to be handled very carefully. And that means separating (absolutely) culture/values and race.
You see: when push comes to shove, the problem I have with democracy is that it legitimises the power of the majority to push the minority around.
The original Greek meaning of the word "demos" was not "people", but "mob". Democracy was an insult: rule by the mob. I would rather have a system - not that I know how this could be achieved - where the power of the government was strictly proscribed but I had no say, than one where 51% of people could get together to strip the 49% of their worldly possessions.
For example, by virtue of the excellent video on population you linked to several days ago, by 2100 it is likely that global human population will be 11 billion+ (plateau point) with 5 billion in Asia and 4 billion in Africa, and only 1 billion in Europe and the Americas.
Really?
Population in Europe is currently 0.742 billion. Population in the Americas is currently 0.953 billion. Population in Africa is currently 1.111 billion
Do you mean 1 billion each (which means virtually no growth in the Americas) or are you talking about a catastrophic population decline of nearly 50% if its 1 billion between them?
A quadrupling of the population in Africa seems unlikely to me.
Employers can read their employees' private messages where those messages are sent over the internet during office hours, judges at the European Court of Human Rights have ruled.
Judges ruled that a company which had read an employee's messages sent via Yahoo Messenger while he was at work was within its rights to do so.
I am surprised that this is news. Employers have been reading employees work email since forever, no?
Most sensible employers will stop employees using systems like Yahoo and others. Of course, anything you write on your employer's email or other communications systems can be monitored by the employer though most are sensible e.g. not concerned with your email to your husband about turning up on time for the school play.
Yebbut what about more important matters like using pb.com during office hours?
I once built a POC of a site called World Financial News, which allowed you to browse the web, while all the showed up in the logs was a series of calls to worldfinancialnews.com/sdsds3443 etc
Essentially it was designed to allow you to circumvent annoying corporate restriction on web access...
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
What if Trump - supported by Congress - decided that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Would that be democracy?
Or should there be limits on what can be democratically decided?
That would definitely violate the First Amendment.
Which bit? Congress has no power to decide who votes at all (other than in DC).
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
It wouldn't be against immigrants, it is against Muslims, including American citizens.
So under Trump's plan, an American Army Officer who is serving in Afghanistan would't be allowed back into the USA.
The ACLU will have so much fun with that.
I know that. The question put to me was about immigration. That is why I replied as I did. (I know: lawyers - such pedants!!)
Personally, I think Trump's proposal is bonkers. If you're trying to eliminate or reduce a risk you want to be focused not use a blunderbuss which will likely blow your own feet off.
He could get away with using the same principles FDR used when he interned Japanese Americans during WW2.
Came here as a child from Kuwait with his family following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. So we gave him refuge. We gave him citizenship. We gave him an education. And he turned into a terrorist murdering British citizens.
This cartoon may be offensive. The cover arguably even more so. But so what? There is a point behind it. A valid one. We don't know what people who are let into the country are like and what they will turn into. We have to accept the possibility that some of them will turn out to be total ar*eholes. That is why we should stop granting groups of people some sort of automatic sainthood just on the basis of what category they fall into. And even more reason why we should not open our doors to all in that group without any intelligent thought about who we want and why and who we don't want.
Being a refugee does not mean that you are automatically a morally flawless hero.
Your Sean Connery reworkings are most entertaining. I watched Hunt for Red October on Dave recently and during that scene I kept thinking of your different versions,
I find people referring to each other as 'comrade' in this day and age downright weird.
It'd be like me referring to local property owners in my constituency Conservative Party meetings as 'my liege'.
There's a speech in which Chuka exclaims "Comrades!" in a way that absolutely can't be taken seriously. Can't find it on YouTube though.
"Comrades! This is your Captain! It is an honour to speak to you today! And I'm honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our Motherland's most recent achievement. And once more, we play our dangerous game. A game of chess... against our old adversary... the Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game... and played it well. But today, the game is different. WE have the advantage! It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Attlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations. Now they will tremble again - at the sound of our Progressiveness. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!
"Comrades! Our own Parliamentary Party don't know our full potential! They will do everything possible to test us, but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind! We will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! And when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... comradeship.
For example, by virtue of the excellent video on population you linked to several days ago, by 2100 it is likely that global human population will be 11 billion+ (plateau point) with 5 billion in Asia and 4 billion in Africa, and only 1 billion in Europe and the Americas.
Really?
Population in Europe is currently 0.742 billion. Population in the Americas is currently 0.953 billion. Population in Africa is currently 1.111 billion
Do you mean 1 billion each (which means virtually no growth in the Americas) or are you talking about a catastrophic population decline of nearly 50% if its 1 billion between them?
A quadrupling of the population in Africa seems unlikely to me.
Actually, two billion between Europe and the Americas sounds about right.
It might be a false sense of rightness, but I'm finding the Democrat race alot harder to bet on/judge than the Republican race. Hilary has ALL the establishment behind her, and Bernie's few poll leads are not of a long term sustained nature. It's a 2 horse race, with another possible NR that might be persuaded - and Hilary is massively favoured, and yet...
Came here as a child from Kuwait with his family following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. So we gave him refuge. We gave him citizenship. We gave him an education. And he turned into a terrorist murdering British citizens.
This cartoon may be offensive. The cover arguably even more so. But so what? There is a point behind it. A valid one. We don't know what people who are let into the country are like and what they will turn into. We have to accept the possibility that some of them will turn out to be total ar*eholes. That is why we should stop granting groups of people some sort of automatic sainthood just on the basis of what category they fall into. And even more reason why we should not open our doors to all in that group without any intelligent thought about who we want and why and who we don't want.
Being a refugee does not mean that you are automatically a morally flawless hero.
Oh, absolutely. And they have, of course, every right to run the cartoon. I'm not offended - more shocked at the chutzpah.
You see: when push comes to shove, the problem I have with democracy is that it legitimises the power of the majority to push the minority around.
The original Greek meaning of the word "demos" was not "people", but "mob". Democracy was an insult: rule by the mob. I would rather have a system - not that I know how this could be achieved - where the power of the government was strictly proscribed but I had no say, than one where 51% of people could get together to strip the 49% of their worldly possessions.
Ah, do I detect another convert to the Dante movement? Democracy, especially universal franchise democracy, is an abomination under which the tyranny of the majority (or in the UK the tyranny of the largest minority) holds sway and no person is truly free.
You see: when push comes to shove, the problem I have with democracy is that it legitimises the power of the majority to push the minority around.
The original Greek meaning of the word "demos" was not "people", but "mob". Democracy was an insult: rule by the mob. I would rather have a system - not that I know how this could be achieved - where the power of the government was strictly proscribed but I had no say, than one where 51% of people could get together to strip the 49% of their worldly possessions.
Ah, do I detect another convert to the Dante movement? Democracy, especially universal franchise democracy, is an abomination under which the tyranny of the majority (or in the UK the tyranny of the largest minority) holds sway and no person is truly free.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not sure what the alternative is. But I think we idolise the tyranny of the majority too much.
Came here as a child from Kuwait with his family following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. So we gave him refuge. We gave him citizenship. We gave him an education. And he turned into a terrorist murdering British citizens.
This cartoon may be offensive. The cover arguably even more so. But so what? There is a point behind it. A valid one. We don't know what people who are let into the country are like and what they will turn into. We have to accept the possibility that some of them will turn out to be total ar*eholes. That is why we should stop granting groups of people some sort of automatic sainthood just on the basis of what category they fall into. And even more reason why we should not open our doors to all in that group without any intelligent thought about who we want and why and who we don't want.
Being a refugee does not mean that you are automatically a morally flawless hero.
Oh, absolutely. And they have, of course, every right to run the cartoon. I'm not offended - more shocked at the chutzpah.
I'm pleased that they're still going, despite everything. We need people with chutzpah to point out that the Emperors have no clothes.
You see: when push comes to shove, the problem I have with democracy is that it legitimises the power of the majority to push the minority around.
The original Greek meaning of the word "demos" was not "people", but "mob". Democracy was an insult: rule by the mob. I would rather have a system - not that I know how this could be achieved - where the power of the government was strictly proscribed but I had no say, than one where 51% of people could get together to strip the 49% of their worldly possessions.
Ah, do I detect another convert to the Dante movement? Democracy, especially universal franchise democracy, is an abomination under which the tyranny of the majority (or in the UK the tyranny of the largest minority) holds sway and no person is truly free.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not sure what the alternative is. But I think we idolise the tyranny of the majority too much.
I think the alternative is pretty much what we have now - a system of Parliamentary democracy which I think serves to mitigate the worst excesses of the mob.
You see: when push comes to shove, the problem I have with democracy is that it legitimises the power of the majority to push the minority around.
The original Greek meaning of the word "demos" was not "people", but "mob". Democracy was an insult: rule by the mob. I would rather have a system - not that I know how this could be achieved - where the power of the government was strictly proscribed but I had no say, than one where 51% of people could get together to strip the 49% of their worldly possessions.
Ah, do I detect another convert to the Dante movement? Democracy, especially universal franchise democracy, is an abomination under which the tyranny of the majority (or in the UK the tyranny of the largest minority) holds sway and no person is truly free.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not sure what the alternative is. But I think we idolise the tyranny of the majority too much.
I think the alternative is pretty much what we have now - a system of Parliamentary democracy which I think serves to mitigate the worst excesses of the mob.
You see: when push comes to shove, the problem I have with democracy is that it legitimises the power of the majority to push the minority around.
The original Greek meaning of the word "demos" was not "people", but "mob". Democracy was an insult: rule by the mob. I would rather have a system - not that I know how this could be achieved - where the power of the government was strictly proscribed but I had no say, than one where 51% of people could get together to strip the 49% of their worldly possessions.
Ah, do I detect another convert to the Dante movement? Democracy, especially universal franchise democracy, is an abomination under which the tyranny of the majority (or in the UK the tyranny of the largest minority) holds sway and no person is truly free.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not sure what the alternative is. But I think we idolise the tyranny of the majority too much.
I think the alternative is pretty much what we have now - a system of Parliamentary democracy which I think serves to mitigate the worst excesses of the mob.
Two words: Jeremy Corbyn
Two more words: One man.
He still needs to get another 325 MPs to agree with him. :-)
You see: when push comes to shove, the problem I have with democracy is that it legitimises the power of the majority to push the minority around.
The original Greek meaning of the word "demos" was not "people", but "mob". Democracy was an insult: rule by the mob. I would rather have a system - not that I know how this could be achieved - where the power of the government was strictly proscribed but I had no say, than one where 51% of people could get together to strip the 49% of their worldly possessions.
Ah, do I detect another convert to the Dante movement? Democracy, especially universal franchise democracy, is an abomination under which the tyranny of the majority (or in the UK the tyranny of the largest minority) holds sway and no person is truly free.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not sure what the alternative is. But I think we idolise the tyranny of the majority too much.
This is Hailsham's Elective Dictatorship point.
To which there are two answers: (1) constitutions which place some sort of limit on the majority's powers; and (2) the attitudes of mind which accept that the majority may one day be the minority and therefore do not go beyond broadly accepted and understood conventions.
A small example of the latter is the debate we were having the other day about the government's changes to party funding and the fair point from @NickPalmer that by convention this is done on a cross party basis and it is understood that there should be some equality of arms hence Short money etc.
Even in a democracy a winner take all mentality is not good. The majority have a responsibility to govern for all and to pass the system onto the next generation in good shape.
You see: when push comes to shove, the problem I have with democracy is that it legitimises the power of the majority to push the minority around.
The original Greek meaning of the word "demos" was not "people", but "mob". Democracy was an insult: rule by the mob. I would rather have a system - not that I know how this could be achieved - where the power of the government was strictly proscribed but I had no say, than one where 51% of people could get together to strip the 49% of their worldly possessions.
Ah, do I detect another convert to the Dante movement? Democracy, especially universal franchise democracy, is an abomination under which the tyranny of the majority (or in the UK the tyranny of the largest minority) holds sway and no person is truly free.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not sure what the alternative is. But I think we idolise the tyranny of the majority too much.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
- Winston Churchill
OR
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Even in a democracy a winner take all mentality is not good. The majority have a responsibility to govern for all and to pass the system onto the next generation in good shape.
Indeed, the system should be passed on. But it doesn't follow that the Labour Party should.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
It wouldn't be against immigrants, it is against Muslims, including American citizens.
So under Trump's plan, an American Army Officer who is serving in Afghanistan would't be allowed back into the USA.
The ACLU will have so much fun with that.
I know that. The question put to me was about immigration. That is why I replied as I did. (I know: lawyers - such pedants!!)
Personally, I think Trump's proposal is bonkers. If you're trying to eliminate or reduce a risk you want to be focused not use a blunderbuss which will likely blow your own feet off.
He could get away with using the same principles FDR used when he interned Japanese Americans during WW2.
An entire country attacked America and also invaded half the pacific. The key word being 'war'. Its generally regarded as a pretty shameful event in US history.
For example, by virtue of the excellent video on population you linked to several days ago, by 2100 it is likely that global human population will be 11 billion+ (plateau point) with 5 billion in Asia and 4 billion in Africa, and only 1 billion in Europe and the Americas.
Really?
Population in Europe is currently 0.742 billion. Population in the Americas is currently 0.953 billion. Population in Africa is currently 1.111 billion
Do you mean 1 billion each (which means virtually no growth in the Americas) or are you talking about a catastrophic population decline of nearly 50% if its 1 billion between them?
A quadrupling of the population in Africa seems unlikely to me.
Yes, sorry. 1bn in Europe and another 1bn in the Americas.
Robert Smithson posted a video link to the lecture. It forecast Africa expanding from 1bn to 4bn and Asia from 4bn - 5bn.
Employers can read their employees' private messages where those messages are sent over the internet during office hours, judges at the European Court of Human Rights have ruled.
Judges ruled that a company which had read an employee's messages sent via Yahoo Messenger while he was at work was within its rights to do so.
I am surprised that this is news. Employers have been reading employees work email since forever, no?
Most sensible employers will stop employees using systems like Yahoo and others. Of course, anything you write on your employer's email or other communications systems can be monitored by the employer though most are sensible e.g. not concerned with your email to your husband about turning up on time for the school play.
Yebbut what about more important matters like using pb.com during office hours?
I once built a POC of a site called World Financial News, which allowed you to browse the web, while all the showed up in the logs was a series of calls to worldfinancialnews.com/sdsds3443 etc
Essentially it was designed to allow you to circumvent annoying corporate restriction on web access...
That sounds interesting. I guess all done server side though, so would be heavy on bandwidth in and out. Could you make it recast video?
In today's environment it would most likely get spotted by firewalls and monitoring software, would be blacklisted pretty quickly once the admins worked out what it was. Another more resilient way would be with two domains, the publicised one just being a dummy that redirects to the real one. Chances are the dummy would go undetected and the real one would be blocked, so it could be respawned on another domain and all you'd need to do is change the redirect.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
It wouldn't be against immigrants, it is against Muslims, including American citizens.
So under Trump's plan, an American Army Officer who is serving in Afghanistan would't be allowed back into the USA.
The ACLU will have so much fun with that.
I know that. The question put to me was about immigration. That is why I replied as I did. (I know: lawyers - such pedants!!)
Personally, I think Trump's proposal is bonkers. If you're trying to eliminate or reduce a risk you want to be focused not use a blunderbuss which will likely blow your own feet off.
He could get away with using the same principles FDR used when he interned Japanese Americans during WW2.
An entire country attacked America and also invaded half the pacific. The key word being 'war'. Its generally regarded as a pretty shameful event in US history.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
It wouldn't be against immigrants, it is against Muslims, including American citizens.
So under Trump's plan, an American Army Officer who is serving in Afghanistan would't be allowed back into the USA.
The ACLU will have so much fun with that.
I know that. The question put to me was about immigration. That is why I replied as I did. (I know: lawyers - such pedants!!)
Personally, I think Trump's proposal is bonkers. If you're trying to eliminate or reduce a risk you want to be focused not use a blunderbuss which will likely blow your own feet off.
He could get away with using the same principles FDR used when he interned Japanese Americans during WW2.
An entire country attacked America and also invaded half the pacific. The key word being 'war'. Its generally regarded as a pretty shameful event in US history.
@JohnRentoul: But party allows 6 months' grace for lapsers, so the exodus has only just started.
Well, we're getting towards the point where the party could lose virtually all the 2014 members and still come out ahead of where they were. Which I guess must make Labour centrists despair - hard to convince people to get rid of Corbyn who basically joined because of Corbyn.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
It wouldn't be against immigrants, it is against Muslims, including American citizens.
So under Trump's plan, an American Army Officer who is serving in Afghanistan would't be allowed back into the USA.
The ACLU will have so much fun with that.
I know that. The question put to me was about immigration. That is why I replied as I did. (I know: lawyers - such pedants!!)
Personally, I think Trump's proposal is bonkers. If you're trying to eliminate or reduce a risk you want to be focused not use a blunderbuss which will likely blow your own feet off.
He could get away with using the same principles FDR used when he interned Japanese Americans during WW2.
An entire country attacked America and also invaded half the pacific. The key word being 'war'. Its generally regarded as a pretty shameful event in US history.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
It wouldn't be against immigrants, it is against Muslims, including American citizens.
So under Trump's plan, an American Army Officer who is serving in Afghanistan would't be allowed back into the USA.
The ACLU will have so much fun with that.
I know that. The question put to me was about immigration. That is why I replied as I did. (I know: lawyers - such pedants!!)
Personally, I think Trump's proposal is bonkers. If you're trying to eliminate or reduce a risk you want to be focused not use a blunderbuss which will likely blow your own feet off.
He could get away with using the same principles FDR used when he interned Japanese Americans during WW2.
An entire country attacked America and also invaded half the pacific. The key word being 'war'. Its generally regarded as a pretty shameful event in US history.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
It wouldn't be against immigrants, it is against Muslims, including American citizens.
So under Trump's plan, an American Army Officer who is serving in Afghanistan would't be allowed back into the USA.
The ACLU will have so much fun with that.
I know that. The question put to me was about immigration. That is why I replied as I did. (I know: lawyers - such pedants!!)
Personally, I think Trump's proposal is bonkers. If you're trying to eliminate or reduce a risk you want to be focused not use a blunderbuss which will likely blow your own feet off.
He could get away with using the same principles FDR used when he interned Japanese Americans during WW2.
An entire country attacked America and also invaded half the pacific. The key word being 'war'. Its generally regarded as a pretty shameful event in US history.
''Every time we ignore democracy we are chipping away rather than reinforcing the democratic state of mind.''
What if America votes in Trump and he bans muslim immigration
That's democracy right?
Well yes it is. The US has placed limits on immigration at various times in its history. I don't see why such limits affect whether a country is a democracy. Unlimited immigration into a country is not at all necessary for a country to be democratic. Arguably, it is something which would be more likely to undermine a democracy by fundamentally altering or fraying the demos which is needed for a democracy to exist.
Whether his proposed ban is in line with the US Constitution or would even get past both Houses of Congress is another matter and not one on which I feel qualified to comment.
It wouldn't be against immigrants, it is against Muslims, including American citizens.
So under Trump's plan, an American Army Officer who is serving in Afghanistan would't be allowed back into the USA.
The ACLU will have so much fun with that.
I know that. The question put to me was about immigration. That is why I replied as I did. (I know: lawyers - such pedants!!)
Personally, I think Trump's proposal is bonkers. If you're trying to eliminate or reduce a risk you want to be focused not use a blunderbuss which will likely blow your own feet off.
He could get away with using the same principles FDR used when he interned Japanese Americans during WW2.
An entire country attacked America and also invaded half the pacific. The key word being 'war'. Its generally regarded as a pretty shameful event in US history.
Being in the EEA would allow us to implement freedom of movement only for those who have jobs confirmed rather than just anyone who wants to come and look for work,
No, it's exactly the same EU directive which applies. There's no difference as regards freedom of movement.
Are you absolutely sure (genuine question - I don't know). I'd be surprised if, for instance, Switzerland was willing to allow free movement of all EU resident + the ability to claim benefits on arrival
The Swiss have a bilateral deal with the EU rather than being in the EEA, plus their benefits system is completely different to ours. One has to contribute for a minimum of 12 months to be eligible for unemployment insurance at 80% of previous average monthly income for 12 months. It's the kind of system we should be moving towards, but because of that no immigrant immediately qualifies for state support in Switzerland and there is no concept of housing benefit or in-work benefits given that wages are so high (a retail assistant will make around 3250 Fr per month). If we were to model our welfare system on a different nation, Switzerland would be a very good one. High wages, low benefits.
Agreed 100%. Irrespective of all other issues, changing our tax and benefit system to actually encourage work rather than discourage it should be politicians number one priority.
I've been doing some reading on the differences between JSA and universal credit. Not much really in terms of money, but one thing stuck out to me. People on JSA are able to get 50% off public transport and it can be carried through into the first three months of work. They have removed that with UC. For people living in zone 6 in London the cost of travel for the first three months of work after being on JSA would be £115 per month, for UC it is £227 per month. Surely after a period of unemployment the government should be making sure the cost of going to work is low to ensure people don't get discouraged. Especially since most people coming off long term unemployment are going to be doing low or unskilled work with low or minimum pay rates.
Hopefully UC will keep the public transport discount if that comes to light through public, backbencher and media pressure. I would agree though we are one of the few developed nations where those who pay into the system get exactly the same as those who have not. However the system in Australia and New Zealand is arguably even worse as even if you have paid in through taxes all your working life you will get no benefits if you have savings, here at least you can get contributory JSA for 6 months
@JohnRentoul: But party allows 6 months' grace for lapsers, so the exodus has only just started.
Well, we're getting towards the point where the party could lose virtually all the 2014 members and still come out ahead of where they were. Which I guess must make Labour centrists despair - hard to convince people to get rid of Corbyn who basically joined because of Corbyn.
Not if Corbyn fails, like Foot did. Corbyn won't stay on past 2020 if he loses then.
I'm not gloating too much about Labour Party membership numbers.
Look at the Conservative Party, which might now amount to a total membership *below* six figures: those close to the leadership made it clear that those who volunteered and worked hard for the party were part of the problem, and they didn't respect their views either.
What happened? They left.
And now the leadership act surprised and wonder why they can't get anyone to hit the streets for them and have to rely on big money to compensate.
500 people on the streets of Battersea on GE day - didn't make an iota of difference.
I've often wondered whether any of the ground game makes any difference at all. I know that view won't be popular on here because people on here are campaigners and nobody will want to believe that what they personally do is a complete waste of time.
But where is the empirical evidence?
We are repeatedly told that all the effort is put into the marginals - so why don't we see a much higher turnout in marginals?
My client bank has millions in NS&I Premium Bonds and especially Index linked savings certificates which have been fabulous - until very recently - for example and despite them not now having been on sale for years and having never paid commission.
You are a very sensible man.
My portfolio is chok-full of premium bonds and NS&I index-linkers as well
And I'm still smug about going all cash in November
You must be a client....
'Fraid not. My bank charges me very modest fees and gives me an exceptional level of service
The offensive thing to me in the cartoon is that it is a bit Benny Hill. A single molester and a woman looking a little coy, as if it is all a bit of fun.
I have never found Hebdo very funny, but of course they should print what they want in the way of cartoons.
The offensive thing to me in the cartoon is that it is a bit Benny Hill. A single molester and a woman looking a little coy, as if it is all a bit of fun.
I have never found Hebdo very funny, but of course they should print what they want in the way of cartoons.
That was what I thought. I can find nothing in this cartoon remotely funny or satirical. Its crudely offensive to women.
I thought these arguments included fallacies and decided to introduce Three Eurosceptic Fallacies. They are given below.
#FALLACY1: The Telepod Fallacy. * Contradicts arguments like: "We can be in the EEA or EFTA or have our own deal" * Short form: COMBINING OPTIONS IS NOT VALID * Long form: "We can be in the EEA or EFTA or have our own deal". Each option (EEA, EFTA, own deal) has its advantages and disadvantages, and some of them are contradictory. You can have one option, or the other, or another, but you cannot combine options and expect the combination to make sense: it will have contradictory elements. You can desire the strength of the gorilla, the cunning of the wolf, the smile of the dolphin, but if you put all three into a telepod and press "send" you're not going to get a smiley strong cunning thing, you're going to get a red mess that screams wetly and dies.
#FALLACY2: The Angelina Jolie Fallacy. * Contradicts arguments like: "But we can have our own tailored deal". * Short form: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "CAN" AND "WILL" * Long form: People who want to get divorced fixate on an idealised partner: the unhappy husband dreams of an infinitely sympathetic Angelina Jolie at his beck and call. Similarly, the dreams of a tailored deal in which each country provides a new deal with none of the disadvantages and all the advantages of the old deal. But the other country's interests have not changed, they will not want to change the deal, and will have other commitments: the divorced male is still middle-aged (and now poor) and Angelina Jolie is still rich and married to Brad Pitt. A tailored deal will not eventuate because from the other country's POV nothing has changed: a key still has to fit a lock, even if the key believes otherwise. Options are not chosen in isolation and there are other interests that act against it. * See also "we can have controlled migration", "we can have a Commonwealth free trade area"
#FALLACY3: The Rincewind fallacy. * Contradicts arguments like: "But Europe is full of rapist/crooks/thugs/etc". * Short form: DESCRIBING PROBLEMS DOES NOT MAKE THE ALTERNATIVE BETTER * Some of you may recall the Pratchett wizard Rincewind who was firmly convinced that it's not where you run *to*, it's what you run *from*. This was useful when evading monsters, but it only works in fiction. Running from a problem does not cure a problem. You may desire to reduce migration or evade militant religionists by exit, but exit will not cure them, nor make them less likely (see "Angelina Jolie fallacy" above), and it ignores the disadvantages of the alternatives.
I think each of your fallacies contains fallacies (at least false assumptions) too numerous to list. Not you best analytic work.
Hopefully he/she didn't waste too much time on a comment littered with inaccuracies.
It's pretty clear to me that the strategy of Remain is to goad Leave into picking a particular leave option by pointing out that they can't agree which option we'd have.
Then can they turn the vote into a referendum on that leave option rather than on the EU. That would have benefit of unpicking some of the Leave coalition who wish to leave for different reasons but might not agree with that particular option, and would also allow them to mobilise EU politicians and officials to state on the record that they'd never agree to such a deal.
I'm not playing, and neither should Leave.
I'm not sure. Speaking as a Remainist, I would fear a Leave campaign that was centred on one option. For example, if you came together on the EEA route that would be a winner, I think. Of course, there's the problem that we don't have prior agreement to it but if you could finesse that it would give you a very solid platform.
I believe Leave.EU are in the process of adopting EEA+EFTA as their preferred route for leaving the EU. Hopefully this will silence a lot of Europhiles who keep demanding to know what a post-Brexit UK would look like.
Comments
"Comrades! This is your Captain! It is an honour to speak to you today! And I'm honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our Motherland's most recent achievement. And once more, we play our dangerous game. A game of chess... against our old adversary... the Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game... and played it well. But today, the game is different. WE have the advantage! It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Attlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations. Now they will tremble again - at the sound of our Progressiveness. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!
"Comrades! Our own Parliamentary Party don't know our full potential! They will do everything possible to test us, but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind! We will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! And when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... comradeship.
"A great day, comrades! We sail into history!"
Of course, that is the fundamental problem with unfettered democracy - the majority can always vote to disenfranchise or rob a minority unless protections are in place in the Constitution (written or oral).
Corbyn and Sanders both believe it perfectly acceptable to tax the 'rich' at ever higher rates even against their wishes. Ultimately, how is taking someone's wealth different from taking their vote?
And we do disenfranchise classes of people. Prisoners, mentally impaired, non-citizens.
Personally, I think disenfranchising an individual based on religion is both unethical and unconstitutional (at least in the US) and it would destabilize society to the detriment of all. It could never pass the Supreme Court. But if it were constitutional, it would not necessarily be undemocratic.
I agree that there would be more dispute if the ban was restricted to non-citizens.
Mind you, that same democratic approach led to them killing most of their successful war leaders after some naval setbacks, which may well have lost them the Peloponnesian War to Sparta.
Tyranny of the majority or of the minority are serious issues.
Again going back to the Chinese Exclusion Act case history that was the distinction the Supreme Court made. A citizen is protected by the constitution so can come and go as they please without discrimination but a non-citizen migrant can be restricted by Congress.
I would argue that a democracy which does not allow categories of people to vote, save in very few and exceptional circumstances, is fast on the road to not being a democracy at all.
With regards to an immigration ban (which is not what has been proposed) that isn't unconstitutional as the constitution doesn't cover overseas non-citizens.
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/687307592360685568
"Donald J Trump calls for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
"Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,"
And the unamended constitution forbids religious tests for office (is being a voter an "office"?)
Constitutional*? Yes.
* It's two thirds of states etc not Americans but I assume that's your point ...
Personally, I think Trump's proposal is bonkers. If you're trying to eliminate or reduce a risk you want to be focused not use a blunderbuss which will likely blow your own feet off.
There are going to be a lot of questions like this over the decades to come.
For example, by virtue of the excellent video on population you linked to several days ago, by 2100 it is likely that global human population will be 11 billion+ (plateau point) with 5 billion in Asia and 4 billion in Africa, and only 1 billion in Europe and the Americas.
Those continents are also where the vast majority of Whites will be who are likely to be in an ethnic minority virtually everywhere, on current trends.
The politics of that will have to be handled very carefully. And that means separating (absolutely) culture/values and race.
I watched Hunt for Red October on Dave recently and during that scene I kept thinking of your different versions,
For every dollar you move the number, you lose a certain number of possible immigrants (or emigrants). You want to maximise freedom, while simultaneously maximising the welfare of British citizens. That would seem to me that - at a very minimum - you do not subsidise people coming to the UK via the benefit system, and possibly you charge people for access to other government services in one way or another.
One thing I do fundamentally believe in, though, is that the market is the best way to decide these things. I.e., we choose a price that immigrants should pay, rather than create a bureacracy and attempt to fit people into microcategories. Better to have a price and let people decide.
The original Greek meaning of the word "demos" was not "people", but "mob". Democracy was an insult: rule by the mob. I would rather have a system - not that I know how this could be achieved - where the power of the government was strictly proscribed but I had no say, than one where 51% of people could get together to strip the 49% of their worldly possessions.
Population in Europe is currently 0.742 billion.
Population in the Americas is currently 0.953 billion.
Population in Africa is currently 1.111 billion
Do you mean 1 billion each (which means virtually no growth in the Americas) or are you talking about a catastrophic population decline of nearly 50% if its 1 billion between them?
A quadrupling of the population in Africa seems unlikely to me.
Essentially it was designed to allow you to circumvent annoying corporate restriction on web access...
Came here as a child from Kuwait with his family following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. So we gave him refuge. We gave him citizenship. We gave him an education. And he turned into a terrorist murdering British citizens.
This cartoon may be offensive. The cover arguably even more so. But so what? There is a point behind it. A valid one. We don't know what people who are let into the country are like and what they will turn into. We have to accept the possibility that some of them will turn out to be total ar*eholes. That is why we should stop granting groups of people some sort of automatic sainthood just on the basis of what category they fall into. And even more reason why we should not open our doors to all in that group without any intelligent thought about who we want and why and who we don't want.
Being a refugee does not mean that you are automatically a morally flawless hero.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-13/former-federal-prosecutor-says-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-within-60-days-or-f
@Maomentum_: To those who say there were more members under Blair, it is now commonly agreed that they were the wrong kind of members.
Source: a lawyer who once prosecuted things a long time ago
Credibility: almost non-existent
He still needs to get another 325 MPs to agree with him. :-)
To which there are two answers: (1) constitutions which place some sort of limit on the majority's powers; and (2) the attitudes of mind which accept that the majority may one day be the minority and therefore do not go beyond broadly accepted and understood conventions.
A small example of the latter is the debate we were having the other day about the government's changes to party funding and the fair point from @NickPalmer that by convention this is done on a cross party basis and it is understood that there should be some equality of arms hence Short money etc.
Even in a democracy a winner take all mentality is not good. The majority have a responsibility to govern for all and to pass the system onto the next generation in good shape.
- Winston Churchill
OR
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
- Winston Churchill
Robert Smithson posted a video link to the lecture. It forecast Africa expanding from 1bn to 4bn and Asia from 4bn - 5bn.
We are already at c.7bn today.
In today's environment it would most likely get spotted by firewalls and monitoring software, would be blacklisted pretty quickly once the admins worked out what it was. Another more resilient way would be with two domains, the publicised one just being a dummy that redirects to the real one. Chances are the dummy would go undetected and the real one would be blocked, so it could be respawned on another domain and all you'd need to do is change the redirect.
http://order-order.com/2016/01/13/kay-burley-happiness-in-her-eyes/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_arma_enim_silent_leges
although Cicero's actual wording was "Silent enim leges inter arma"
I have a very talented tongue. English, French, German, Punjabi, Urdu, Latin and Greek are some of the languages I can speak.
I'm currently learning Spanish.
Look at the Conservative Party, which might now amount to a total membership *below* six figures: those close to the leadership made it clear that those who volunteered and worked hard for the party were part of the problem, and they didn't respect their views either.
What happened? They left.
And now the leadership act surprised and wonder why they can't get anyone to hit the streets for them and have to rely on big money to compensate.
I've often wondered whether any of the ground game makes any difference at all. I know that view won't be popular on here because people on here are campaigners and nobody will want to believe that what they personally do is a complete waste of time.
But where is the empirical evidence?
We are repeatedly told that all the effort is put into the marginals - so why don't we see a much higher turnout in marginals?
I have never found Hebdo very funny, but of course they should print what they want in the way of cartoons.