RugbyRebels

Stones of granite wrote:I was quite interested in this paragraph from a Guardian article this morning.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ittle-hope

Nicola Sturgeon’s hopes of gaining support for her bid to keep Scotland in the European Union despite the UK’s vote to leave have been dealt a blow after the Spanish prime minister warned: “If the United Kingdom leaves … Scotland leaves.”

It seems that the Spanish Prime Minister is willing to pay to pay of the price his fishermen being excluded from British fishing waters - most of which lie inside what would be Scottish fishing waters - in order to wave a matter of principle at his Catalonian opponents.

I just don't see how Nicola can avoid 'having' to go for independence and then take turn in the queue to get into Europe...anyone know anything different? Quite a conundrum, as pretty sure the former is a shoo-in as of today? ...but the latter could take a fair while- what could she offer as a bribe?

Banquo wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:I was quite interested in this paragraph from a Guardian article this morning.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ittle-hope

Nicola Sturgeon’s hopes of gaining support for her bid to keep Scotland in the European Union despite the UK’s vote to leave have been dealt a blow after the Spanish prime minister warned: “If the United Kingdom leaves … Scotland leaves.”

It seems that the Spanish Prime Minister is willing to pay to pay of the price his fishermen being excluded from British fishing waters - most of which lie inside what would be Scottish fishing waters - in order to wave a matter of principle at his Catalonian opponents.

I just don't see how Nicola can avoid 'having' to go for independence and then take turn in the queue to get into Europe...anyone know anything different? Quite a conundrum, as pretty sure the former is a shoo-in as of today? ...but the latter could take a fair while- what could she offer as a bribe?

This lady seems to think it would be easy enough for Scotland to take on the UKs position in the EU and have England be the one that 'leaves' ...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... land-wales

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Oh and Scottish papers today reporting there will be another Indy ref within 2 years.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Modern antisemitism may not always be about overt violence and persecution, though there is too much of that even to this day. We must also be vigilant against subtler and invidious manifestations of this nasty ancient hatred and avoid slipping into its traps by accident or intent, our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled Islamic states or organisations.

Does anyone have an issue with this quote? Is it incorrect?

Other than the fact no one should ever criticise Israel because they sh*t roses and the Palestinians are being wiped off the face of the earth because its their own fault.

UGagain wrote: http://medialens.org/index.php?option=c ... Itemid=248

Cheers, Fella. Sums it all up rather well.

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:I was quite interested in this paragraph from a Guardian article this morning.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ittle-hope

Nicola Sturgeon’s hopes of gaining support for her bid to keep Scotland in the European Union despite the UK’s vote to leave have been dealt a blow after the Spanish prime minister warned: “If the United Kingdom leaves … Scotland leaves.”

It seems that the Spanish Prime Minister is willing to pay to pay of the price his fishermen being excluded from British fishing waters - most of which lie inside what would be Scottish fishing waters - in order to wave a matter of principle at his Catalonian opponents.

I just don't see how Nicola can avoid 'having' to go for independence and then take turn in the queue to get into Europe...anyone know anything different? Quite a conundrum, as pretty sure the former is a shoo-in as of today? ...but the latter could take a fair while- what could she offer as a bribe?

This lady seems to think it would be easy enough for Scotland to take on the UKs position in the EU and have England be the one that 'leaves' ...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... land-wales

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Lol, good luck with that.

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote: I just don't see how Nicola can avoid 'having' to go for independence and then take turn in the queue to get into Europe...anyone know anything different? Quite a conundrum, as pretty sure the former is a shoo-in as of today? ...but the latter could take a fair while- what could she offer as a bribe?

This lady seems to think it would be easy enough for Scotland to take on the UKs position in the EU and have England be the one that 'leaves' ...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... land-wales

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Lol, good luck with that.

Whatever happens from this point on, Scotland is going to need s huge slice of luck.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Banquo wrote: I just don't see how Nicola can avoid 'having' to go for independence and then take turn in the queue to get into Europe...anyone know anything different? Quite a conundrum, as pretty sure the former is a shoo-in as of today? ...but the latter could take a fair while- what could she offer as a bribe?

This lady seems to think it would be easy enough for Scotland to take on the UKs position in the EU and have England be the one that 'leaves' ...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... land-wales

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Lol, good luck with that.

They could go to the European Court of Human Rights ?.

kk67 wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: This lady seems to think it would be easy enough for Scotland to take on the UKs position in the EU and have England be the one that 'leaves' ...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... land-wales

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Lol, good luck with that.

They could go to the European Court of Human Rights ?.

And claim there should be no right to democratic elections?

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Banquo wrote:
Lol, good luck with that.

They could go to the European Court of Human Rights ?.

And claim there should be no right to democratic elections?

I was being a tad facetious,....but as Scotland democratically voted to stay, it could be argued they have a case ?.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:
They could go to the European Court of Human Rights ?.

And claim there should be no right to democratic elections?

I was being a tad facetious,....but as Scotland democratically voted to stay, it could be argued they have a case ?.

They're part of the UK so just based on the vote no. But things don't stand still, no matter some want to return to a version of the 1950s that never existed, and as to what happens next, well politics is the art of the possible and they'll have to see what's wanted of what's possible.

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:
And claim there should be no right to democratic elections?

I was being a tad facetious,....but as Scotland democratically voted to stay, it could be argued they have a case ?.

politics is the art of the possible and they'll have to see what's wanted of what's possible.

Politics currently seems to be the art of the backlash......and the art of the plans that were formulated in secret 18 months ago (nothing new about the latter).
I cannot remember a time when political manoeuvring has become so apparent to the general population. Westminster in it's entirety has become so transparently self interested that we run the risk of a total breakdown in the system.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:
They could go to the European Court of Human Rights ?.

And claim there should be no right to democratic elections?

I was being a tad facetious,....but as Scotland democratically voted to stay, it could be argued they have a case ?.

No. For a start Scotland is not a Human.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:
And claim there should be no right to democratic elections?

I was being a tad facetious,....but as Scotland democratically voted to stay, it could be argued they have a case ?.

No. For a start Scotland is not a Human.

Well, you told me.
What percentage of MP's are still legally trained these days..?. I know it has dropped in the last 10 years. It used to be something like 70% ?.

Thoroughly recommend this piece from Open Democracy, along with the link to the piece from Owen Jones.

Its brutally honest, setting out Corbyn's failures in a pretty stark way. Its one of the best articles I've seen about Corbyn and his tenure as leader.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/anthon ... nd-england

fivepointer wrote:Thoroughly recommend this piece from Open Democracy, along with the link to the piece from Owen Jones.

Its brutally honest, setting out Corbyn's failures in a pretty stark way. Its one of the best articles I've seen about Corbyn and his tenure as leader.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/anthon ... nd-england

This rather epitomises what is happening.
A complete misrepresentation of both Corbyn and Owen Jones.
Read what you want,.....that is your democratic right,......but this article is facking balls.

fivepointer wrote:Thoroughly recommend this piece from Open Democracy, along with the link to the piece from Owen Jones.

Its brutally honest, setting out Corbyn's failures in a pretty stark way. Its one of the best articles I've seen about Corbyn and his tenure as leader.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/anthon ... nd-england

Owen Jones is a twat and that piece is rubbish.

Astonishing briefing from Corbyn earlier, comparing the Israeli state to ISIS, I can quite understand many frustrations with the Israeli state (I'd even share some of them) but if he can't see why what he said is stupid and needlessly offensive, well I'd suggest he should resign but Jeremy isn't for turning. Also some wholly unacceptable comments from an idiot Corbyn supporter in the room toward a Labour MP, Ruth Smeeth, which the news coverage didn't show Corbyn as shouting down (and he bloody should have done) but did show him smiling and chatting with the supporter after the event. The man's a disgrace, and with no sense of presentation which might give some cover to his glaring ineptitude.

Never mind Corbyn now looks poor, it's starting to reflect very poorly on others in the party that they can't/won't get rid of the unpleasant sod.

Digby wrote:Astonishing briefing from Corbyn earlier, comparing the Israeli state to ISIS, I can quite understand many frustrations with the Israeli state (I'd even share some of them) but if he can't see why what he said is stupid and needlessly offensive, well I'd suggest he should resign but Jeremy isn't for turning. Also some wholly unacceptable comments from an idiot Corbyn supporter in the room toward a Labour MP, Ruth Smeeth, which the news coverage didn't show Corbyn as shouting down (and he bloody should have done) but did show him smiling and chatting with the supporter after the event. The man's a disgrace, and with no sense of presentation which might give some cover to his glaring ineptitude.

Never mind Corbyn now looks poor, it's starting to reflect very poorly on others in the party that they can't/won't get rid of the unpleasant sod.

Nothing he said is incorrect. If he'd replaced the word "Israel" with "Syria" or "Iraq", how many people would be complaining?

The only thing astonishing is someone with his prominence had the balls to speak the truth. What isn't astonishing is your response, however. Israel could drop a nuke to finish the job and it'd still be the "Arabs'" fault.

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:Astonishing briefing from Corbyn earlier, comparing the Israeli state to ISIS, I can quite understand many frustrations with the Israeli state (I'd even share some of them) but if he can't see why what he said is stupid and needlessly offensive, well I'd suggest he should resign but Jeremy isn't for turning. Also some wholly unacceptable comments from an idiot Corbyn supporter in the room toward a Labour MP, Ruth Smeeth, which the news coverage didn't show Corbyn as shouting down (and he bloody should have done) but did show him smiling and chatting with the supporter after the event. The man's a disgrace, and with no sense of presentation which might give some cover to his glaring ineptitude.

Never mind Corbyn now looks poor, it's starting to reflect very poorly on others in the party that they can't/won't get rid of the unpleasant sod.

Nothing he said is incorrect. If he'd replaced the word "Israel" with "Syria" or "Iraq", how many people would be complaining?

The only thing astonishing is someone with his prominence had the balls to speak the truth. What isn't astonishing is your response, however. Israel could drop a nuke to finish the job and it'd still be the "Arabs'" fault.

There are many truths one could say of Israel, perhaps even on a day where one its children was stabbed to death in her bed. Comparing and perhaps even equating them to ISIS isn't one of them, nor anything close. And it's just absurd as a potential leader of a nation such as the UK to allow such commentary on a speech designed to show he was in control of his party, leaving aside it's asinine it's just rank bad politics.

Digby wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Digby wrote:Astonishing briefing from Corbyn earlier, comparing the Israeli state to ISIS, I can quite understand many frustrations with the Israeli state (I'd even share some of them) but if he can't see why what he said is stupid and needlessly offensive, well I'd suggest he should resign but Jeremy isn't for turning. Also some wholly unacceptable comments from an idiot Corbyn supporter in the room toward a Labour MP, Ruth Smeeth, which the news coverage didn't show Corbyn as shouting down (and he bloody should have done) but did show him smiling and chatting with the supporter after the event. The man's a disgrace, and with no sense of presentation which might give some cover to his glaring ineptitude.

Never mind Corbyn now looks poor, it's starting to reflect very poorly on others in the party that they can't/won't get rid of the unpleasant sod.

Nothing he said is incorrect. If he'd replaced the word "Israel" with "Syria" or "Iraq", how many people would be complaining?

The only thing astonishing is someone with his prominence had the balls to speak the truth. What isn't astonishing is your response, however. Israel could drop a nuke to finish the job and it'd still be the "Arabs'" fault.

There are many truths one could say of Israel, perhaps even on a day where one its children was stabbed to death in her bed. Comparing and perhaps even equating them to ISIS isn't one of them, nor anything close. And it's just absurd as a potential leader of a nation such as the UK to allow such commentary on a speech designed to show he was in control of his party, leaving aside it's asinine it's just rank bad politics.

Why is it absurd? Like I said, plenty of politicians criticised the South African government under apartheid, plenty criticise the Syrian government, and in fact I've heard many even criticise the Saudi government who are an ally of the west.

There have been a number of comments within Labour about Israel that have been conflated with Anti-Semitism. Corbyn has directly addressed these feelings by separating the two.

For the record, I know it is a political no-no. My argument isn't that it won't badly affect his position even more, just the absurd hypocrisy of this entire Israel situation. Over 60 UN resolutions broken, countless documented war crimes, and a politician raising a question about it all is still attacked and berated.

How many Palestinians died today, BTW? Since 2000, for every Israeli child killed, 16 Palestinian children die.

I haven't said don't criticise Israel, I've even said I'd agree with some criticisms (though not all), what I said was it was unreasonable to compare and/or equate Israel with ISIS.

I'd hazard a guess that this Digby character is a professional concern troll from the Sainsbury branch of the Labour Party.

Digby wrote:I haven't said don't criticise Israel, I've even said I'd agree with some criticisms (though not all), what I said was it was unreasonable to compare and/or equate Israel with ISIS.

Why not?

They're both US clients.

It's not fair to equate Israel to ISIS because Israel has modern guided weapons systems, white phosphorus and an Air Force so it doesn't need to undertake suicide bomb attacks.