brommy

2 minutes ago, villakram said:

It would be similar to bombing the Vatican at Easter or any of the huge cathedrals across Europe at Easter or Xmas. I believe it was called "shock & awe" once upon a time. Someone at CNN forgot to check their email over the weekend I guess.

But wouldn't it be like Catholics bombing the Vatican at Easter?

1 hour ago, villaglint said:

Lot of learned folks on here so could someone enlighten me as to the logic of going after Islamic sites in such a big way during Ramadan.

 

I think Daesh don't give a hoot whether it's Ramadan or not.

EDIT: alternatively, most people get moody when they are hungry.

The government were stupid enough not to plan for something that could and did happen so it doesn't surprise me that we need to spend some time gathering a suitable team.

I'm aware that Article 50 keeps us in the EU for up to 2 years from when it has been submitted but, other than 'being urged', is there an actual time limit for submitting Article 50? What's to stop us spending a year or so gathering our team together before submitting and therefore gaining the full 2 years to negotiate a good deal for us?

3 hours ago, limpid said:

We aren't even getting religion out of education in the UK. It's a bit hypocritical to do it in other places.

Most posts are constructed from what people believe is happening or should happen. If it were up to me, I would make all education religion-free from now so there would be no hypocrisy from me.

Just now, choffer said:

I suspect you understood the point I was making

 

Indeed. It is time governments across the world stopped pandering to the immediate demands of 'big business' and started thinking of the long term benefits of education in the hope of a more stable world.

4 minutes ago, choffer said:

But nobody makes billions of dollars from Education.

Education makes the whole world richer, not just a few dozen large companies.

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

 

The population of arab north Africa is something like 360 million people. The population of Pakistan is 182 million, Bangladesh 150 million. I haven't looked up figures for Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Phillippines....

We cannot currently plan and fund worthwhile activity for the few thousand people in our own prisons that have already gone through 16 years of the UK education system.

 

 

Education is cheaper than warfare. Just 10% of the US and European defence budget would go a long way to educate millions, including, as it has been described, educating the educators.

4 hours ago, blandy said:

Be nice, wouldn't it. I don't think ISIS are big on education, either, though.

I think we should support and demonstrate the advantages of education to those who live in areas that are not directly controlled by Daesh. As the military conflict continues, Daesh are losing control of the higher populated areas (mostly in Syria and Iraq) and gaining some control in the lower populated areas of Libya. The more people that are educated in a non religious context, the less likely they are to take up arms in support of Daesh. It may take decades, but short of rolling over and all becoming Daesh converts or trying to 'bomb them all to hell', neither of which is acceptable and/or practical, I don't see another way forward.

7 minutes ago, Xann said:

Going to need one feck of an unlikely winning streak to come out of this up.

By the time the economic dust has settled (and people can't even agree on that time frame), it will be difficult to compare against what the UK and it's economy would have been like if we had remained in the EU. I'm sure Leavers will say that we would have suffered from massive failures in the level of public services due to large immigration numbers overloading 'the system'. I also predict Remainers will be claiming everything would have been fine if only we hadn't left.

Then there's the uncertainty of what the EU's long term economic and political outlook will be over those years. Perhaps we will have been better off out of that. Even time won't tell as their won't be indisputable facts on either side.

To add to the above, there are those Leavers who are quite willing to accept a certain level of disruption to the economy for what being outside the EU means to them.

Unless I had lived the experience of a thousand lives scattered across all communities of the UK, I'd find it difficult to criticise anyone's referendum decision and I don't think anyone will ever be able to be categorically proved wrong or correct. 

4 hours ago, snowychap said:

I don't think so. If we've left then they'd have to make a case for the Euro along with a case for the EU and I think the former would me a hundred times more difficult than the latter.

Is it now in the EU's own rules that any new members must adopt the Euro?

Is it possible that the Labour party could run the next GE campaign on an 'in Europe' ticket in the hope of collecting millions of votes from people of all political persuasions who are strongly in favour of being in the EU? I assume the UK will have completed Article 50 and left the EU by then, but there is an 'Article' for entering the EU.

I assume the aim of talking is to improve understanding and promote compromise in the hope it will lead to less violence on both sides, but it certainly has some problems:

1)  I don't believe 'the West' have a lot more to understand about Daesh and I'm not sure which of Daesh's aims we'd be willing to accept as a compromise.

2)  I don't believe Daesh are interested in increasing their understanding of anyone who doesn't subscribe to their doctrine and Daesh aren't willing to compromise.

Where does that leave talking?

The long term solution may be through education at the expense of any religious doctrine.

8 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm not worried about importance, I was pointing out hypocrisy. 

I realised that!

If a politician gained 3 votes to his opponent's 2 votes from an electorate of 100, the politician would still claim 'a clear mandate' and yet this government is insisting on union votes meeting a criteria.

Hypocrisy aside though, 37.4% is a reasonably high figure from a close decision in a national referendum without compulsory voting. 

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

FUN FACT!

52% of 72% of eligible voters voted for Brexit = 37.4%

Government's proposed new rules for the eligibility of a vote on any form of industrial action = 40%

Boris Johnson on the tyranny of union votes: 'Strikes “called on the basis of a very small proportion of the relevant workforce” are “unfair” and “put a terrific psychological burden on people who don’t want to take strike action,” he raged. Legislation should be the ‘Day one‘ priority of a new Tory government, he demanded.'

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/37-4-not-even-enough-for-an-overtime-ban/

I wouldn't hang too much on the importance of those figures as 37.4% is relatively high. After all, this very government gained power with just one quarter of the potential electorate.

So it appears there are plenty of reasons to vote for either side. The hardest part is to be tolerant of those opinions.

I don't think the Leavers have the monopoly on idiotic thought processes. For example, my wife recently spoke to a clothes shop assistant who freely admitted she voted to 'Remain in Europe' because she didn't want to be part of something else 'like Africa'. A genuine quote!

Are the EU too intransigent to consider amendment of just one of their numerous founding principles? Perhaps they might realise the current and impending further instability of the EU is more self destructive than change.

55 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

it will be the end of Parliament as we know it if they do

Will Parliament's submission of Article 50 be a 'free vote' or a three line whip?

As of 22nd June, only 158 of the 650 MPs had declared a Leave preference. Those 158 (assuming none has moved to Remain) need a lot of support from the 479 MPs who have declared a Remain preference, especially as many MPs may see the decision as a vote of conscience.

It'll all come out in the wash.  Besides, there's a possibility that Article 50 won't be submitted by the UK Parliament. Perhaps the next Conservative leader will put the will of Parliament above the will of the electorate.

14 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Ok everything is fine then,  nothing to worry about rather like Borris said yesterday. 

Eh? Some things are fine. Some are not. Time heals some things and breaks others. Time and humanity will continue regardless of any political party or trade group.

9 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Not without massively uncompetitive terms.

Do those countries still get by well enough that they might believe being outside the EU but still trading with the EU, is a price worth paying?

EDIT - I think we have strayed off the topic of this thread! Happy to continue in the EU thread.

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

No

Are you sure?

6 minutes ago, sidcow said:

When we have ACTUALLY negotiated what we can and cannot have. The out vote was basically won on we can trade with Europe and stop immigration.  That IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

 

Without shouting, aren't there already numerous countries without uncontrolled immigration that trade with the EU?

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

His hope was to have a close enough vote to show Cameron he was out of touch but show he was broadly in touch with the common folk.  Just enough to distabilise Cameron but not enough to actually sway the nation.  In that regard he was just as out of touch with reality as Cameron who never should have and most definitely wouldn't have allowed the referendum if he thought he would have lost. I am still flabbergasted no one gets this. Politicians are so far removed from the population that absolutely none of them really believed Britain would vote leave, not our lot and not the EU lot. 

I don't believe any politician, let alone Johnson, would or could plan such a narrow window of defeat amongst such a massive electorate.

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Not continuous. Just we had this one on opinion and theory. Now here is one one hard absolute facts. Not a lot to ask is it? 

When will we know when all the 'facts' have been established and whose version of the facts do we trust?