UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
message 2101:
by
Marc
(new)
Oct 08, 2015 02:04AM
I just want to ask about Corbyn & the Queen. As Prime Minister he would have to go and ask her to form a government, have formal periodic meetings with her, how is he going to bring himself to do these as an avowed republican if he's ducking and diving over the Privy Council oath?
reply
|
flag
Will wrote: "I'm incensed by his attack on Corbyn. To base it on half of a sentence is disgraceful politics."No Will, it's politics. If the tables were reversed, do you honestly believe that they would do any different?
Marc wrote: "I just want to ask about Corbyn & the Queen. As Prime Minister he would have to go and ask her to form a government, have formal periodic meetings with her, how is he going to bring himself to do t..."He could send a minion in his place.
so the Queen should retaliate and send Edward
R.M.F wrote: "He could send a minion in his place."It has to be the prime minister, not a substitute.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "He could send a minion in his place."It has to be the prime minister, not a substitute."
But he's a republican, and he would be elected, which is something the Queen will never be.
what's that to do with the price of fish? We have a constitution, archaic as its prescriptions may be, and that involves a democratically elected PM asking the Queen to form a government, tick boxing as this may be
message 2108:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Oct 08, 2015 03:16AM)
(new)
Furthermore, all prime ministers have said that the Queen's experience vastly exceeds anything they bring to the table as she has learnt from all the PMs and experiences that she has experienced during her reign.This is an extraordinary wealth of information that any prime minister would be a fool to not take advantage of, republican or monarchist. Furthermore, her knowldge of people at the highest levels of government is unique.
apart from apologising to Thatcher when Queenie was in fact right on the money re South Africa
I said knowledgable, not infallable.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Furthermore, all prime ministers have said that the Queen's experience vastly exceeds anything they bring to the table as she has learnt from all the PMs and experiences that she has experienced du..."Somebody is angling for an OBE :)
Don't get me started on that one. If you are a sportsman and you enjoy your sport and become recognised in your profession who needs to be a dame or Lord or Sir - It's become rather ridiculous.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Furthermore, all prime ministers have said that the Queen's experience vastly exceeds anything they bring to the table as she has learnt from all the PMs and experiences that she has experienced du..."This reminds me of a play I saw recently called Handbagged. It was about the Queen and Mrs Thatcher and when they had their regular meetings...very funny it was too.
I'm not going to suggest that any of these people are positive role models, but in the context of Corbyn not kissing hands with Mrs Queen:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/...
That's just too depressing for words
And in the cockpit around Syria, all too possible.
Syria could be very messy but my gut feeling (therefore worth nothing) is that it could be less dangerous that something kicking off in the South China Sea. The South China Sea could pit China face to face with the USA.Syria could be a lot of nasty little wars all going on at once with the Russians getting pulled in deeper and deeper and with a strong possibility of ISIS counterattacking through the Russian Islamic population, most of which is Sunni. It could bleed Russia far more severely than Afghanistan bled the Soviets
I could see Europe catching a whole lot of refugees and possibly collateral terrorism. But it could suck Russia in so deep they haven't the strength left to continue pushing West into the Ukraine or the Baltic States
My feeling are with you. South China Sea is my bet too. Especially as China has developed a missile system specifically to kill US carriers.I read that during the Cold War if the USSR had turned West, NATO would have had to use battlefield nukes on the third day, due to the sheer weight of Soviet numbers. China is in the same position as the USSR was and if you remember your history it was that same mass of manpower that drove back McArthur in Korea, who wanted Truman to nuke Peking and other Chinese cities.
This is why we need a nuclear deterrent.
The hope is that if Russia does get involved too heavily in Syria, it'll encourage others in the Pacific to back down a bit.On the positive side it'll be a grim warning and might provoke caution and common sense.
From a more cynical point of view, China has never let its claim to Siberia lapse. In 1820 the Chinese border almost reached Lake Baikal and was well north of the Amur river. If Russia starts to go down, they might take over Eastern Russia with Western backing to stop things falling into the hands of various terrorist groups. So if Russia does get itself involved in a long messy war in the Middle East, the Chinese might want to keep their hands free for that.
Why would anyone wanna play Risk when reality will do?
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "My feeling are with you. South China Sea is my bet too. Especially as China has developed a missile system specifically to kill US carriers.I read that during the Cold War if the USSR had turned ..."
Actually Geoff I believe it is entire why we do NOT need nuclear: how long before another myopic stupid general demands a nuke strike because he is losing? And an intellectual pygmy like Cameron presses the button? Who wins then?
Remember, Corbyn's fears to the contrary, the British Prime Minister, unlike the US president, doesn't have his finger on the button.Nobody has ever been stupid enough to give that power to a British Politician
The finger on the button is the Captain and one other officer on each Trident (or equivalent) Submarine.
They have a letter from the Prime Minister, but almost by definition the letter will be read after the PM is most probably dead and the two officers will decide how to launch the reactive strike.
Obviously they might have changed the system recently, but that's the one we always had
The thought of Obama with his finger on the button!
Better Obama than Bush, Lynne. At least he thinks about what he's doing and actually knows where these other countries are in the world... And can you imagine Trump with that power?
Will wrote: "Better Obama than Bush, Lynne. At least he thinks about what he's doing and actually knows where these other countries are in the world... And can you imagine Trump with that power?""One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Although obviously I don't like Plato would have expected you to abandon your home city to take part in the governing of another
when Radio 4 goes off the air for a protracted period, then our Trident sub officers know the bomb has gone up and will react accordingly by pressing their buttons
Without an independent nuclear deterrent we will always be threatened by those that have weapons. Furthermore, they know that they can attack us with impunity.A bit like having a Labour government with Corbyn as prime minister.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Furthermore, they know that they can attack us with impunity..."Wasn't there a Monty Python sketch about that?
David wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Furthermore, they know that they can attack us with impunity..."Wasn't there a Monty Python sketch about that?"
Most probably.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Without an independent nuclear deterrent we will always be threatened by those that have weapons. Furthermore, they know that they can attack us with impunity.A bit like having a Labour governmen..."
Actually Geoff, no they won't. (Except possibly for the French). No one has invaded Germany since WW11 have they? Or Greece, or Italy, or Spain, for example or Australia or New Zealand for example.
Given that these countries were all under a Nato (or Seato or other nuclear umbrella) they're not really a fair comparison.Because they are all party of treaties where if they're attacked then they will be defended in kind, which means that if they're attacked with nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons will be used against the attacker.
But actually it's impossible to prove, because there hasn't been a 'proper' war involving major powers fighting other major powers. Nuclear weapons may (or it may be chance) have deterred nuclear powers fighting nuclear powers.
The usual analogy is that the deterrent of chemical weapons (the 19th century technology equivalent) have, since 1918, never been used on an opponent that had them
The one historical fact we know is that the one use of a nuclear bomb was against a country which didn't have one. The reason Russia scrambled desperately to get one was because of a fear that the Americans might provoke a war which they would use as an excuse to wipe out major Russian cities.
(Whether the fear was well founded is an entirely different matter. There's an interesting wiki on Truman, MacArthur and nuclear weapon use in Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside... )
Meantime it is being reported that Camermoron has authorised air to air combat with Russian jets over Syria if the pilot feels under threat, and the Tornados are being armed with the latest ( £200K a pop) air to air missiles...
which is why we have proxy wars such as is developing in Syria
Will wrote: "Meantime it is being reported that Camermoron has authorised air to air combat with Russian jets over Syria if the pilot feels under threat, and the Tornados are being armed with the latest ( £200K..."The problem is what does he do.
Parliament has authorised the RAF to fly bombing missions in Iraq
Since then the Russians have arrived and so far, whilst 'fighting in Syria' they've flown over much of Turkey and fired cruise missiles into Iran
So there is a problem. If Parliament still wants the RAF Planes to be there, there is a risk that they will come within 'combat range' which is anywhere up to 100km (Ironically it's higher if you're peaceful because it's then easier to get a missile lock on you.)
So Parliament has a decision to make. It has put British Pilots within harms way. The choice is pulling them out, giving them the means to defend themselves if attacked, or talking to the Russians to try and work out some way of everybody knowing who is where and reducing the chance of accidents.
At the moment the Americans (which means us and the Turks as well) are trying to do the last of these so Parliament has a simple choice of which of the two it does until the agreement comes into being.
Actually I'd trust the judgement of Tornado pilots over the judgement of MPs in pretty well all cases, so it's probably not a bad call
In September I mentioned my husband going to Toulon on the train with the train being boarded at the last minute by a large group of men, etc. It's now being acknowledge that SNCF are allowing obvious migrants free passage. It's been picked up by our press. I think the sub context is actually that the controllers are either deliberately turning a blind eye as sympathisers or too scared to tackle a large group of men without tickets. As well as the nimby aspect that if they are travelling onwards they aren't making camps in my back garden. It's a very French attitude, the bar in the village now uses a leaf blower instead of a besom to push his leaves off his pavement onto his neighbour's patch. The thought of actually picking them up and dealing with them properly hasn't yet arrived in France, like the migrants. Shoo them elsewhere!
Some months ago, I agonizingly came up with the idea that the usually useless UN should buy land (the size of Yorkshire +) somewhere in north Africa or the middle east and divide it into sectors, police it, put a basic infrastructure in place (improving that over time), start off with tent towns, then move the migrants there. Then we all have one place where we can send aid.Once the basics are established, paid for by aid, then the migrants themselves can be organized or organize themselves to build towns and villages, create farm land (much aid needed for this) schools, hospitals and so on.
I didn't say anything because I thought others might think it daft or a flawed plan for political reasons.
Then I noticed a group from the House of Lords suggesting a large piece of land should be bought. Then I noticed a similar idea to buy land came up with another group.
Yet nothing, NOTHING, has been done, as far as I know.
Is it such a daft plan?
Ask an Australian.And where exactly would this 'empty' piece of land be?
Anything decent would already be populated.
So let's ask the indigenous people.
Effectively you would have to displace some people to create a whole new country, Anna.Ask the Palestinians how that worked out for them...
Not a whole new country, there'd be too many different factions, but a temporary holding area until those who wished to return to their own country could safely do so. Might take a while and some might prefer to stay.And yes, finding the land would be difficult, but not impossible - if the will is there. I've lived in Africa, scrubby bush style Africa, and I've seen and been part of creating thriving farm land, trees growing where none had ever had the chance to do before. I've watched as one mud hut village caught on as to how to use water wisely, and create pasture for goats and a few oxen and cows. It can be done. Impoverished African countries might be persuaded to part with sparsely populated or unpopulated land for a big enough sum of money.
I am not saying that no migrants should be allowed to stay in Europe, but it is clear now that many more are arriving than Europe can cope with.
As far as I can see Europe isn't coping with them at all. They are just ignoring the problem. It needs serious co-operation and a cohesive plan. Schengen rules are not being applied at all,as they are for passport holding visitors.
I'm not sure whether Schengen rules can cope anyway with the situationAs far as I can work out, let's assume everybody in Europe takes their quota of migrants.
Once the migrants have been accepted and got their papers, what's to stop them going to Germany anyway?
(That is actually a question because I don't know)
The free movement stuff only applies to civilians.Refugees who have been granted asylum won't be able to take advantage of it.
Nothing as far as I can see Jim, or the UK, once they have visas people have the right to free passage throughout Europe but only for a visit, it's not a permanent right to residence. One of the clauses is also proof that the applicant has the means to support themselves while in Europe. It's the people without any papers who have no right to cross borders or apply for Schengen visas. Applying for asylum or refugee status is different.
I'm surprised there's no comment here about the mess that Labour got themselves into yesterday. RMF, you must be as disappointed as me that The Sturgeon has ruled out another referendum. That means we'll have to carry on propping you lot up.
message 2147:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Oct 15, 2015 11:42AM)
(new)
Patti (baconater) wrote: "What mess, Geoff?"Well, normally a political party gives the leader a grace period to bed in, so to speak. Yesterday there were 20 abstentions and 16 MPs who managed to get out of voting after Corbyn had threatened sackings if they didn't vote against and then changed his mind.
I think this is the first vote under the whip.
Is this the deficit thing?
Hats off to Osborne. He's a vile little man with a vile little agenda to deal with the country's finances by making the poorest in society suffer the most. But he's good at politics.
I agree with the politics, he really baited the trap beautifully and they swallowed it hook, line and sinker.As for the suffering, I don't agree completely. The tax credits were a mess from the start, as HMRC were never going to administer it properly. The delays in processing sent families into debt paying back overpayments or not receiving what they deserved. They were a political benefit at its worst that increased dependence on benefits and subsidising big businesses who paid minimum wages, so it scared people into voting Labour to maintain the dependency. That makes Osborne little stunt seem completely innocent by comparison to Brown's utter cynicism.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
