Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I think polytechnics are a good idea. Comparing the UK with the German educational system, the UK has always been excellent at educating a small number of elites up to a really elite level, and relatively bad at educating the rest of us to a competent level.
Polytechnics played the role of good quality vocational education that in Germany has for decades helped produce a well-educated, skilled workforce to back up the high level elite. The idea that changing polytechnics into universities would match the needs of the 21st century really has proved false.
To use an anecdote, I was born and bred in Ealing where the Ealing Polytechnic Catering School was perhaps the best regarded in the country. Then it got changed into Thames Valley University, which for good reasons came to be so badly regarded that it had to change itself into University of West London.
Chef is now one of the top five most demanded skill sets in the UK because there aren't enough of them.
The other point which agrees with yours is that student Chefs aren't going to pay £12,000 a year for an education because the Cheffing life is one of the hardest and lowest paid around.
At any rate, it really is a good thing for politicians to recognise where they (the government) have made bad decisions in the past and reconsider them.
Kilkrazy wrote: To get back to UK politics, I see a report on the BBC shows that WTO rules are not as generous as we might have thought in terms of forming trading pacts between nations/regions. This may prove an obstacle to the kind of trade deal May wants to do with the EU. However, there are some grounds ot hope that problems may not arise.
Ketara wrote: .... Nobody in this country gave a damn when the likes of my family had to pack our suitcases and run for fear of getting shot/strung up by a mob in one country...
So how exactly did you come to stay in our country, it sounds like you sought asylum, and we took you in? How do you square that with a nation that according to you, doesn't give a damn?
What do you expect us to do apart from offer you and your family a new home? If you're so incensed, why don't you start a protest about your treatment?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: .. yet somebody says a few sexist things in another and it's like the antichrist just rolled into town. It really highlights the levels of hypocrisy and first world problems for you.
It's a bit more than "a few sexist things" though. The man is a genuine threat to the established social order, he revels in that fact. He's deliberately breaking down the boundaries of what is aceptable, and women have a lot more to be concerned about than I would say either you or I have by the changing attitudes.
Besides, what harm does it do you if they protest peacefully? Other than give you something to get on your high horse about and play the "first world problems" card.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/23 00:07:39
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Ketara wrote: .... Nobody in this country gave a damn when the likes of my family had to pack our suitcases and run for fear of getting shot/strung up by a mob in one country...
So how exactly did you come to stay in our country, it sounds like you sought asylum, and we took you in? How do you square that with a nation that according to you, doesn't give a damn?
What do you expect us to do apart from offer you and your family a new home? If you're so incensed, why don't you start a protest about your treatment?
I hate to point this out, but it is possible to belong to more than one nation. Britain was my other. I currently carry a British passport, I was born in this country, and my mother is British. So I don't really consider being allowed to live here as the nation 'giving a damn', they didn't extend me any favours with regards to the country I came from. Funnily enough, the only person there willing to stick his head above the parapet to what was going on was the American ambassador(s). They did some brave things to help save lives you'll never hear about in the press.
And the reason I don't start/attend protests is because of the same reason I don't sign facebook petitions. Because I am of the opinion it achieves nothing whatsoever. If I thought that they did, I'd be a regular attendee at ones in line with my moral principles.
If you're the kind of person who attends them however, you're the kind of person who does believe that it achieves something. Which is what makes it pretty indicting that you choose to not bother with the protests about issues of far greater magnitude than what some bloke in another country /might do, when what he /might do will never be as bad as what those other protests are already about. And the reason for that would appear to be either self-congratulation, or as pointed out by others, self-interest. Which I find disgusting. Which is my right.
But this is ranging from British politics now and into my personal life and opinions on morality. Feel free to PM me if you want more details/to keep on discussing it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/01/23 00:20:36
Wait, did everyone just learn NOTHING from brexit and the us election?
If you keep treating differing outlooks with derision you'll suffer the hubris at some point.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
By January 1975, the Saudis had invested a massive $9.3 billion in Britain, of which $800 million was in the public sector – a total investment equivalent to around £20 billion today. British nationalised industries’ total borrowing from the oil producers was around $1.4 billion. However, the Treasury noted that ‘because of the sensitivities of the Saudis we have avoided identifying them as the source’ of these loans to Britain. It also stated that the oil producers’ surplus funds were making a major contribution to financing Britain’s current account deficit in 1974 and the first half of 1975. The Saudis were now ‘very substantial holders of sterling’, the second largest holders among the oil producers (after Nigeria). When Harold Wilson met Prince Fahd in London in October 1975, he was briefed by his advisers to tell the future king: ‘Your country now has a major stake in Britain and you will naturally be closely interested in the progress of the British economy.’
Thus, within two years of the October 1973 oil crisis, the Saudis had poured huge quantities of petrodollars into the British economy, taking a sizeable stake in it. The upshot was that Britain was now economically reliant on the Saudi regime and would be in effect tied to aligning its foreign policy to the regime. British planners were perfectly comfortable with, indeed championed, the Saudis’ increasingly influential regional and world role. In November 1974, a Foreign Office brief for Chancellor Healey’s upcoming visit to Saudi Arabia noted the confidence with which Saudi Arabia, flush with petrodollars, was bestriding the world stage, and that it ‘will retain for the foreseeable future a powerful voice in the formulation of Arab policies’. It encouraged Healey to raise the point that ‘Saudi Arabia and Britain have many interests in common, not least in the maintenance of stability in the Arabian Peninsula’. ‘Stability’ of course meant protecting the sub-region from infection by wayward notions of popular, republican or nationalist government. Britain welcomed Saudi Arabia’s pre-eminence in the region, especially after having decided to reduce its own military commitments to the Gulf states a few years earlier.
The Kingdom’s links with terrorist groups were known to the US by the early 1970s. In May 1974, for example, the US State Department warned Britain not to go ahead with its reported offer to sell Blowpipe surface-to-air missiles to Saudi Arabia, for fear of ‘seepage of this type of weapon into the hands of terrorists’. The US ambassador to Saudi Arabia told his British counterpart that the US had refused to sell similar equipment, the Redeye, for fear of their ending up in the hands of terrorists and being ‘used against civil aircraft or similar targets’.
...huh. Funny how things change eh ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/23 11:46:15
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
The distinguished audience members were too polite to heckle. But the eye rolling, frowns and audible tutting made it quite clear how the Brexiteers' message was going down with German business leaders.
Owen Paterson, a former minister and Conservative MP, and John Longworth, co-chair of Leave Means Leave, came to Berlin on Saturday with a clear mission - to persuade German business leaders to lobby Chancellor Angela Merkel to give Britain a good trade deal.
They should have been on safe territory.
The two men are confident, witty speakers with impressive business and free-trade credentials.
Mr Longworth is a former head of the British Chamber of Commerce. Mr Paterson's years spent trading in Germany meant he could open his address with a few remarks in German - which drew an appreciative round of applause - and a well-judged joke about multilingual trade.
But it turned out they had entered the lion's den.
The laughter from the audience quickly turned to sniggers as they heard the UK described as "a beacon of open, free trade around the world".
Westminster's decision to leave the world's largest free trade area does not look like that to Germany.
When Europe was blamed for spending cuts and a lack of British health care provision, there were audible mutters of irritation from the audience.
The occasional light-hearted attempts at EU-bashing - usually guaranteed to get a cheap laugh with some British audiences - was met with stony silence.
In another setting - at another time - this gathering of the elite of Germany's powerful business community would have lapped up the British wit.
Every ironic quip would ordinarily have had them rolling in the aisles. But British charm does not travel well these days.
Rattled by the economic havoc Brexit could unleash, Germans are not in the mood for gags.
Britain used to be seen by continentals as quirky and occasionally awkward - but reliably pragmatic on the economy.
However, since the Brexit vote, Europeans suspect endearing eccentricity has morphed into unpredictable irrationality. The UK has become the tipsy, tweedy uncle, who after too much Christmas sherry has tipped over into drunkenly abusive bore.
Remarkably united
When the audience was asked how many of them welcomed Brexit, only one hand went up - and it turned out that belonged to a businessman who wanted more EU reform and was fed up with Britain slowing things down.
Brexiteer rhetoric over the past year has often focused on the size of Britain's market and how keen German manufacturers are to sell to British customers.
Many leave campaigners remain convinced that German business leaders will force Mrs Merkel to grant the UK a special free trade deal in order not to lose British trade.
But that's not what's happening.
Instead German firms are remarkably united in their support of the chancellor in her rejection of British "cherry-picking" - even if it means losing business in the short-term.
When you talk to German bosses they say their top priority is in fact the integrity of the single market, rather than hanging on to British customers.
That's because their supply chains span across the EU.
A German car might be designed in Germany, manufactured in Britain, with components made in various parts of eastern Europe, to be sold in France. This only works if there are no cross-border tariffs, paperwork or red tape.
Support for Merkel
German companies - more often family-owned and with deeper connections to their regional heartlands - tend to look at the wider picture, sometimes thinking more long-term.
They supported Mrs Merkel on sanctions against Russia over Ukraine, even though that meant a blow to trade. The financial hit was deemed less bad for business than worsening unrest in nearby Ukraine.
The same calculations are being made over Brexit.
This doesn't mean German business is thinking politically, and not economically. But rather, it indicates a wider attitude towards how business can thrive long-term.
German business leaders tell you that the British market may be important. But it is only one market, compared to 27 markets in the rest of the EU.
Leave campaigners also still underestimate the political and historical significance of the EU for Germany, where it is seen as the guarantor of peace after centuries of warfare.
It is tempting to see the clashes between Westminster and the EU27 as one big decades-long misunderstanding of what the EU is.
An idealistic peace-project versus a pragmatic free-trade zone. This makes it even more ironic that London may reject the free-trade area it spent so much time creating.
Same old arguments
Germany was shocked and saddened by the UK's vote to leave the EU. But the decision was quickly accepted in Berlin.
"The Brits never really wanted to be members of the European Union anyway," is something you often hear these days.
Many Germans now want to just work out a solution that does the least amount of harm to the European economy. Hence the irritation in Germany when British politicians keep rehashing the pre-referendum debate.
"It was frustrating to hear the same old arguments from the referendum campaign," one business leader told me when I asked him what he had thought about Saturday's discussion.
Germany has moved on, he said. Maybe Britain should too.
The Brexiteers might not have persuaded their audience in Berlin. But if they return to London with a better idea of the mood in Germany's business community, then the trip may well have been worthwhile.
Good times.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
On balance, I don't think the future is a bed of roses for the Germans, either.
German exporters have done very well from a weak Euro and that gravy train may soon hit the buffers.
If Italy and other countries struggle further, then more German bail outs may be needed. How much longer will the German taxpayer put up with that?
Plus, with Britain saying cheerio to the EU, Germany will have to shoulder more of the leadership burden. In the bad times, and there's always bad times, negativity and past history will make Germany unpopular.
Plus, if Trump scales back American military protection from Europe, the Germans are going to have to increase military spending. They are miles away from the 2% of GDP target.
Yes, Britain will have obstacles to overcome, but it's not exactly a smooth road for Germany either.
Having travelled widely and often in Germany, their roads could do with being smooth. Potholes everywhere
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Not a smooth road for Germany either?
But Germany is the ''Exportweltmeister'' and I guess this will not change either.
Have you been to Bavaria - excellent infrastructure. Not so much in Hamburg and other areas.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
wuestenfux wrote: Not a smooth road for Germany either?
But Germany is the ''Exportweltmeister'' and I guess this will not change either.
Have you been to Bavaria - excellent infrastructure. Not so much in Hamburg and other areas.
Germany's export to the UK is relatively small only 7.5% of the total. The US is a bit larger at 9.6%.
It might have an impact but it's not like all of it will disappear. Germany will be fine, it has a strong foundation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SirDonlad wrote: Wait, did everyone just learn NOTHING from brexit and the us election?
If you keep treating differing outlooks with derision you'll suffer the hubris at some point.
There's a difference between things that a clearly false and misleading and labelling them as 'differing outlooks'. By accepting such views validation is given to them. What happens then is simplistic, false, or misrepresented information becomes accepted notion because it is both what people want to hear and easy to swallow. This then allows demagogues like Trump and Farage to gain a foot hold. Hence why people are less 'sympathetic' to these views. Trump is the worst in this type of information mismanagement (you only have to read his claims about his inauguration and that he appears to be seeding news conferences with sycophants who cheer, laugh and clap at the appropriate times).
Differing outlooks are fine when they are based on real data and information (for example Ketara and myself regularly debate different perspectives on the same information) which is all OK because that can help draw a consensus and allow differing approaches to the world to be considered.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/23 19:37:11
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
"Isolationism" is a buzzword-turned-historical fact used by globalists every since the early 20th Century, under false pretenses. The United States, every since it's inception, has never been, and never will be, and isolationist nation. The correct term is "non-interventionist". In other words, unless it was in our own backyard and we weren't attacked directly in some manner, we were basically an over sized Switzerland.
When you say "nationalism", are you referring to the correct dictionary definition of nationalism? Or the European definition (i.e. anything not left wing or pro-globalist is "fascism" or "neo-nazi"). Because I'm a nationalist. I believe in the primacy of the nation-state, believe in putting my nation and it's citizens first, believe in sovereign borders and their defense, and have pride in my homeland despite it's warts. Under the Euro definition of "nationalism",that would make me a hard-right, quasi-fascist thug (at least according to criminal Antifa punks, politicians, Europhiles, and leftist/center-left/center-right media outlets).
Facism is a type of nationalism though. It's just more extreme. No country starts out being facist. It's an insidious corruption that grows from nationalism. To quote wikipedia (as it describes it far better than I ever could!)
"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (self sufficient) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies."
If you compare this to the current state of America:-
A significant proportion of the population are rejecting liberalism as 'bad' and 'failing'
There is a one-party state.
Trump views on some issues (and the people he has surrounded himself) are looking at controlling peoples lives (so abortion, LGBT and so on)
Trump claims that the world has exploited the US.
The state is led by a strong leader (for many people Trump is seen as the person to solve all their woes)
His 'government' is being filled with friends/family those that agree to his views (his own party)
Trump is implementing both protectionist and interventionist policies to make the country self sufficient.
As such although not there yet there are significant inroads in that direction for the US (and the UK) but no one is there yet, however the lurch in that direction is worrying. As to whether you are a facist, you'll have to make up your own decision based on the above definition!
The United States has always been welcoming to people wanting to come here for a better life. The problem that so-called "xenophobes" like me have is when it's not done in accordance to our laws and sovereignty. But that ties in with "nationalism" and "sovereignty" becoming dirty words in some circles. And it's become a political weapon in U.S. politics to smear the opposition. Doubly so close to election cycles.
It depends on what you mean by laws and sovereignty. If those laws are deliberately designed to prevent migrants from having equal rights then yes, people are going to object. In addition if you start expecting migrants to follow every rule and a US citizen does not have to then that become hypocritical. If a migrant exceeds the speed limit is that any worse than if a US citizen breaks the speed limit. If a migrant whilst speeding has a crash and kills someone, but gets reported in the press, is that worse than the US citizen who does the same thing but that doesn't get reported in the press (something similar happened in the UK with some rather right wing press media and people on mobile phones). This is how real bias can be ingrained into the system. If the few Mexicans bring drugs into the US, is it the Mexicans who are causing the problem or the US citizens that illegally taking it (which I gather is getting to epic proportions)
"Islamophobia" is yet another contrived buzzword, attempting to equate any dislike/distrust for the ideology of Islam (Islam is far more than simple religion and has been since it's inception) with racism (a cardinal sin in the modern West) and tying it into to race itself. Those of us who don't rely on the "mainstream media" cartels exclusively for information, weren't educated under the current American educational system, and have long memories, all have good reason to be wary of Islam in all shapes and forms. Sure, there are good individuals who identify as "muslim". But as a group and an ideology, Islam bears close watching on the international stage, and measures need to be taken to ensure that only those aforementioned good individuals, with good intentions, can come here to start over, while thinning the supply of Jihadi pricks attempting to enter the United States. We didn't learn in the past, with the long history of terrorist activity after World War II. And considering that the last two Administrations have used it as an excuse for more foreign adventurism, and the spin doctors are working overtime to spin their "not true Islam" and "not all muslims" narratives, we still haven't learned a damned thing.
Christianity has done just as bad things to people in the past (and some even now). There are Buddhist terrorists and so on. Singling out one particular religion as problematic is racism because it's painting a group of people whether they be a child, woman or man going down to supermarket is to be wary of just because of their approach to life. There is a small minority that are taking opportunity of unrest to exploit peoples frustrations and anger at the world. They are using religion because it accesses a large group of people quickly. All religions have done this in the past. You fall into the trap that is being laid by becoming more hostile and suspicious of people because of their views because that drives more people into the arms that have no interest in anything but placing themselves at the head of a new country and the power that brings. In essence the people that are driving this are indeed facists, but because they are exploiting people under the umbrella of a religion the fear and anger is being targeted there.
In my view, NATO is a Cold War relic and has outlived it's usefulness. That's one reason to pull out of it. Another is that the U.S. foots most of the bill when it comes to meeting it's financial commitments to the alliance. The last, most recent stats that I saw regarding that little issue, is that out of all NATO members besides the U.S, only the United Kingdom, Greece, and Poland has met/exceeded the 2% minimum required under the North Atlantic Treaty. If Greece, a country many consider bankrupt, can meet it's requirement,then there is no excuse for countries with more robust economies to do the same (such as Germany and Canada). Many Euros (and Canadians) talk trash about the United States and it's bloated defense budget/large military, and brag how their countries don't prioritize defense spending beyond the absolute minimum needed, all the while living under the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella from the Big Bad Bear and Czar Putin.
Europeans want NATO? Fine. Show Washington that your're as committed as the British, the Greeks, and the Poles. If not, then it's high time that we pulled out of that dusty relic known as NATO, and seek separate security agreements with individual nations (much like the agreements we already have with the U.K., Canada, and Australia outside of NATO).
NATO is about mutual self protection. If NATO did split up and Russia did decide to invade Alaska then you'd be on your own. Having allies on the other side of the world and opposite borders makes any country think twice because fighting on two sides always places you at a strategic disadvantage.
There is a reason Greece meets its requirements. By not having a large GDP it is easier to meet because 2% of nothing is nothing! Germany is likely to have a sub-conscious wariness in expanding it's military.
I would note though that one of the arguments for Brexit is that we didn't need the EU for supportive defence because there was NATO. One of the countries that is being exemplified for meeting the 2% target actually much prefers NATO (and all of it) to be around!
I'm not fond of the United Nations either. But that is largely an irrelevant organization that serves as a money sink, and a platform for Third World dictators to trash-talk the West, all the while living off of the Western foreign aid spigot. It's no big deal, and wouldn't be missed.
The UN is an organisation that is designed to allow all countries to come together under the banner of neutrality. Yes it costs money and some countries like to air grievances, but they would still do that whether there was a UN or not. The difference is that if hundreds of other nations stand up and say they are talking nonsense then it's hard to argue against. Just because you don't see the direct benefits doesn't mean that it helps keep the world a safer place. Much better to trash talk each other than it is to trash each other!
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
NATO is about mutual self protection. If NATO did split up and Russia did decide to invade Alaska then you'd be on your own. Having allies on the other side of the world and opposite borders makes any country think twice because fighting on two sides always places you at a strategic disadvantage.
Funny thing is you could be on your own anyway. NATO isn't all that much of a protection anyway when members can just say harsh words to the invader and call it a day without actually breaking up the contract. All it demands is aid. Actual FORM of aid meanwhile is up to provider...
A missile test involving Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent system ended in failure off the coast of Florida last year, a US defense official with direct knowledge of the incident told CNN on Monday.
The official told CNN that the incident, which happened last June in an the area off the Florida coast used by the US and the UK for missile tests, did not in involve a nuclear warhead.
Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported that the missile veered towards the US coast, but the US official told CNN that this trajectory was part of an automatic self-destruct sequence. The official said the missile diverted into the ocean -- an automatic procedure when missile electronics detect an anomaly.
A month after the test, the UK parliament approved the renewal of Trident at a cost of £40 billion. Unaware of the failure, members of the House of Commons voted by 472 votes to 117 in favor of renewal.
A Trident missile is launched by the US navy during a test in 1989.
On Sunday, British Prime Minister Theresa May was asked four times during an interview with the BBC's Andrew Marr Show whether she knew of the missile failure before the vote. May refused to answer.
Forced to make a statement on the controversy in the House of Commons on Monday, British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said he had "absolute confidence" in Trident but refused to give "operational details" about the test.
CNN published this story just as Fallon spoke, and Mary Creagh, of the opposition Labour Party demanded to know why he would not give any further details.
Citing CNN's story she said: "The Secretary of State has advised us not to believe everything we read in the Sunday newspapers, but should we believe the [US] official who, while we've been sitting here debating, has confirmed to CNN that the missile did auto-self-destruct off the coast of Florida? And if that is the case, why is the British parliament and the British public the last people to know?"
Fallon once again declined to give "operational details".
There's a clip of her -- well put -- question.
and a picture of her being shown the news by one of her colleagues
Live politics in the modern age ?
..so.. should we , or at least Parliament have been told about the malfunction ? Can't see how one could honestly claim it isn't relevant.
the Express has been rubbish since Desmond took it over.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
It wouldn't surprise me if the real situation, judging by some of the phrasing used was something very roughly along the lines of. "We were trying the submarines launch capability and fitness for purpose (they mentioned recertification). We were not testing the missiles, which was any old dummy practice warhead that's only job was designed to get out of the tubes."
That's most likely complete gibberish but... It gives a situation where everything said by Fallon is true and yet the papers are also right-ish. However Fallon can then not respond to the specific allegations because it reveals details of the test regime - that the warheads are tested separately from the launch mechanisms, which is knowledge that could hypothetically be used by a hostile foreign state in some way.
One again I'm not saying this is the situation but it's an example of a situation where everyone can be sort of correct.
so to surprise of no one Mps will have to vote on article 50.
... Brexit will -- and given the ref. result should -- still happen.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Meh. The Supreme Court judgement changes nothing we didn't already know, but it did serve one good purpose IMO:
it flushed out the true intentions of those who brought this case to the Supreme Court i.e a reversal of the referendum.
That's been their ultimate aim since June 24th. Now, people will have heard me bang this drum before, but today, I was presented with cast iron evidence.
From the beginning, Gina Millar and her supporters have cited parliamentary sovereignty, rule of law, British Constitution etc etc
Which is fair enough. They want it to be legal and done by the book. I won't argue with that.
And then, in the statements to the press, their lawyers let the cat out of the bag:
They banged on about the single market, tariffs, freedom of movement, rights of British citizens living abroad, Parliament having a vote on the final deal...
A reasonable man would ask himself: what the hell has the single market got to do with Parliamentary sovereignty?
Single market membership is a consequence of Parliament exercising its sovereignty to agree to membership, not it's raison d'etre.
Alas for them events have over taken them.
Parliament has agreed in principal to article 50, Corbyn has said Labour won't block it, and in the end, it added up to the square root of gak all.
Only the lawyers have profited from this
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The British Constitution and all citizens have profited from a clear and unsurmountable legal judgement that confirms that the PM cannot use Royal Prerogative to set aside legal rights granted by Parliament.
Kilkrazy wrote: The British Constitution and all citizens have profited from a clear and unsurmountable legal judgement that confirms that the PM cannot use Royal Prerogative to set aside legal rights granted by Parliament.
I don't deny it, and it's a very considerable side benefit.
The judgement also provided a massive boost for the SNP and the Scottish independence campaign, when they ruled that Westminster is sovereign and can ignore the Scottish Parliament, which has shot down in flames all the waffle about federalism, the most powerful devolved administration in the world, and other bullgak spouted by Unionists. No wonder the SNP are happy.
And, as a side bonus, the rug hs well and truly been pulled from underneath the anti-Brexit mob.
I suspect they were hoping that the months of legal delays would galvanise a anti-Brexit group in Parliament, but alas, that's been shot down in flames as well.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Meh. The Supreme Court judgement changes nothing we didn't already know, but it did serve one good purpose IMO:
it flushed out the true intentions of those who brought this case to the Supreme Court i.e a reversal of the referendum.
That's been their ultimate aim since June 24th. Now, people will have heard me bang this drum before, but today, I was presented with cast iron evidence.
From the beginning, Gina Millar and her supporters have cited parliamentary sovereignty, rule of law, British Constitution etc etc
Which is fair enough. They want it to be legal and done by the book. I won't argue with that.
And then, in the statements to the press, their lawyers let the cat out of the bag:
They banged on about the single market, tariffs, freedom of movement, rights of British citizens living abroad, Parliament having a vote on the final deal...
A reasonable man would ask himself: what the hell has the single market got to do with Parliamentary sovereignty?
Single market membership is a consequence of Parliament exercising its sovereignty to agree to membership, not it's raison d'etre.
Alas for them events have over taken them.
Parliament has agreed in principal to article 50, Corbyn has said Labour won't block it, and in the end, it added up to the square root of gak all.
Only the lawyers have profited from this
Do I really have to dig up all the evidence of Vote Leave, and indeed Herr Farage saying that nobody is talking about leaving the Single Market?
This isn't about stopping Article 50 in its tracks, but preventing May's little crew of sociopaths and sycophants making boneheaded decisions to appease a small percentage of the populace who wholeheartedly believe the lies about Brexit.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: [...he judgement also provided a massive boost for the SNP and the Scottish independence campaign, when they ruled that Westminster is sovereign and can ignore the Scottish Parliament,
It didn't but this is how the SNP will spin it. It just confirm what was clear in the first place, the Scottish Parliament does not deal in Foreign Affairs. Shocker!!
the most powerful devolved administration in the worldGalaxy
The Tone-deaf Star?
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
Do I really have to dig up all the evidence of Vote Leave, and indeed Herr Farage saying that nobody is talking about leaving the Single Market?
No you don't have to dig up evidence, because that's not the issue here.
I'm well aware of what Farage said - I don't disagree with you there.
But Gina Millar and her supporters have constantly presented themselves as white knights who were only concerned with legality, procedure, and parliamentary sovereignty.
If you claim your motivation to be the preservation and the defence of the constitution, then why mention the single market? Tariffs?
Makes no sense to me unless you had an ulterior motive.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
May wanted to exert powers that she didn't have. It is to everyone's benefit that a government be told that it is not above the law.
I was in support of the case as I do believe that things must be done properly. We've come through a lot of hardship to get to where we are and we can't throw it all away to sate the braying of the ignorant mob
But... Dier Dos Santos's lawyer said something very revealing at the end. The government needs parliament's consent as article 50 affects laws and rights of UK citizens. May wants to get article 50 enacted by the end of March. I can't find the exact quote but Dos Santos' lawyer effectively said that the government wouldn't be able to get a vote through both houses which completely covered all the laws and rights that leaving the EU brought up.
So, even if the vote does go through you can expect this lot to try to bring a case that parliament wasn't given enough time to discuss and so the parliamentary vote shouldn't count. Their true colours are indeed being exposed.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: [...he judgement also provided a massive boost for the SNP and the Scottish independence campaign, when they ruled that Westminster is sovereign and can ignore the Scottish Parliament,
It didn't but this is how the SNP will spin it. It just confirm what was clear in the first place, the Scottish Parliament does not deal in Foreign Affairs. Shocker!!
the most powerful devolved administration in the worldGalaxy
The Tone-deaf Star?
No offence Notprop, but you don't follow Scottish politics as closely as some on these forums.
Unionists in Scotland, have in their own words and language, talked about federalism, the Scottish parliament being the most powerful devolved administration in the world, etc etc
THEIR words, not the SNPs. I can give you chapter and verse evidence on this all day long.
The judges just blew the Unionist arguments out of the water.
May wanted to exert powers that she didn't have. It is to everyone's benefit that a government be told that it is not above the law.
I was in support of the case as I do believe that things must be done properly. We've come through a lot of hardship to get to where we are and we can't throw it all away to sate the braying of the ignorant mob
But... Dier Dos Santos's lawyer said something very revealing at the end. The government needs parliament's consent as article 50 affects laws and rights of UK citizens. May wants to get article 50 enacted by the end of March. I can't find the exact quote but Dos Santos' lawyer effectively said that the government wouldn't be able to get a vote through both houses which completely covered all the laws and rights that leaving the EU brought up.
So, even if the vote does go through you can expect this lot to try to bring a case that parliament wasn't given enough time to discuss and so the parliamentary vote shouldn't count. Their true colours are indeed being exposed.
Exactly. These people never gave two hoots for Parliamentary sovereignty before. Their end game is pretty obvious.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 12:08:30
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
If you claim your motivation to be the preservation and the defence of the constitution,
..like many of the Brexiteers claimed to be concerned with ?
Parliamentary sovereignty and so forth.
And here it is in action and all of a sudden it's a bad thing ?
Is this the point where we get to say " you lost. get over it ?"
I'm sure we could find a bus to daub it on the side of.
Is it a daft situation ? Yes, absolutely.
For which it's Cameron & May you need to be angry with.
They're the ones who A. worded the ref. specifically so it wouldn't be legally binding -- burnt by the Scottish indy result possibly ?
And then B. May for wasting everyone's time and our money on this stupid challenge.
.. TBf I've seen it argued she/the Govt. knew they'd lose and this was more a ploy to but them a wee bit of extra time ... but...well.... I think that seems to indicate more planning than our current crop of politicians seem capable of.
alas.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 12:42:14
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Exactly. These people never gave two hoots for Parliamentary sovereignty before. Their end game is pretty obvious.
You keep saying this but have yet to put forward any examples of when parliamentary sovereignty was apparently avoided.
So please post any examples of a UK Prime Minister reducing the rights of citizens granted by an act of parliament or overturning a previous act of parliament without going through parliament, which is what May was attempting to do here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 12:55:14
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Exactly. These people never gave two hoots for Parliamentary sovereignty before. Their end game is pretty obvious.
You keep saying this but have yet to put forward any examples of when parliamentary sovereignty was apparently avoided.
So please post any examples of a UK Prime Minister reducing the rights of citizens granted by an act of parliament or overturning a previous act of parliament without going through parliament, which is what May was attempting to do here.
Poll Tax in Scotland.
Scotland and England agreed to the act of Union, Westminster ratified it, and in the act of Union it contained a provision that no tax can be levied in Scotland unless it is also levied across the UK.
Scotland got it a year before the rest of the UK.
We know from papers released under the 30 year rule that Thatcher used Scotland as a guinea pig before introducing it into England. There's your parliamentary sovereignty being overturned.
There is my evidence
and there could be more to follow!
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
hell has the single market got to do with Parliamentary sovereignty? 
