Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis part 2 - Ireland

[rbkwp]

euro related, i hope

heres something Cam can present to the Eu
in his little British ditty shall we stay or go ..
the UK, forever moving forward'
but i do sinerely believe 'long live brittania' royallist i am ha'

Britain's imperial past goes on display in London

A perfect Brexit campaign would include a Royal baby a couple of weeks before the referendum, so I hope William and Kate get the timing right.


smile 'like'agree Jason ha
plus i agree the old staid UK that i love
should get OUT of tyhat sinking sip/t Eu
leave them to it

 

[Perados]

Well... the problem of the UK is that the "enemy" EU devits you... while England is for an exit, Scotland wants to stay.

If you define an enemy, you have to be sure EVERYONE doesn't like him - that's why we choosed Britain

 

[dandelion]

Meanwhile, as I think I mentioned just recently, Turkey is going to war with Russia.

We are still awaiting more details, but as I see it, Russia has been deliberately overflying Turkish territory on its raids, and the Turks finally decided to call them on it. the Russians refused to back down, so they were shot down. This could easily escalate, because fundamentally Turkey and Russia are backing different groups.


Todat the current government announced another reversal of its election policy of cuts. We have now had reversals of increased defence spending, increased secret services spending, increased NHS spending, climbdown on cuts to benefits. More government promises to raise money by selling assests (never worked yet) and firing civilians support staff (costs just as much to hire in outside companies). We have a continuing policy of closing cheap coal fired power stations and buying in more expensive alternatives, while our developing nation competitors laugh at us.

Much of this is national insanity.

 

[Jason]

Well... the problem of the UK is that the "enemy" EU devits you... while England is for an exit, Scotland wants to stay.

Scotland will support Brexit. It will be on the cusp and a late surge, but it will happen.

 

[Perados]

Scotland will support Brexit. It will be on the cusp and a late surge, but it will happen.

Sounds like the "pfeifen im Wald" (whistle in the forrest) - something you do to be not scared

Meanwhile, as I think I mentioned just recently, Turkey is going to war with Russia.

We are still awaiting more details, but as I see it, Russia has been deliberately overflying Turkish territory on its raids, and the Turks finally decided to call them on it. the Russians refused to back down, so they were shot down. This could easily escalate, because fundamentally Turkey and Russia are backing different groups.

well, the Turks say they entered the Turkish territory, Russia says they weren't even close to the border... even worse, they also say one pilot has been shot to death while hanging on his paraglider...

No matter who is right, both sides are ruled by a small guy with way too big egos. None of them will bag down... and that's the real problem.
I could imagen that, if Turkey doesn't say sorry, Russia will say that every NATO airplane entering Syria with the goal to attack Assad troops, will get shutdown.

 

[Drifterwood]

Russia has been using that airspace to bomb non ISIS opponents of Assad. Putin supports the dictator Assad, Turkey and NATO do not. Mr. Putin should now understand that he needs to respect other people's sovereignty.

 

[Jason]

In his address yesterday, Erdogan spoke of the Turkmen people of Northern Syria as "relatives". He also spoke of wanting a safe zone between Jarabulus and the Mediterranean. I think we're seeing the start of a policy here. The Kurds are de facto controllers of Northern Syria from Iraq to the Euphrates. Jarabulus is on the west bank of the Euphrates - Turkey seems to want a de facto Turkmen zone right the way from there to the Mediterranean.

The problem is that the Russians are dug in at Latakia, and the reality is that they will be very difficult to remove. The possible escalation is direct Turkish support for the Turkmen, perhaps with troops. This would bring NATO troops within a very few miles of the Russian bases.

The EU is calling for Turkey to close its border with Syria. The reality of the geography makes this very difficult. What is possible is a militarised buffer zone, with Turkey and the EU working with the Turkmen west of the Euphrates and the Kurds east. Of course the Turks don't like the Kurds. Notwithstanding this would be a coherent policy. I doubt the EU has the resolve. It's easy to criticise Turkey, which is in effect what the EU is doing. What is hard is doing something useful.

 

[dandelion]

Russia says they weren't even close to the border... even worse, they also say one pilot has been shot to death while hanging on his paraglider...

Why is this worse? The surviving pilot is quoted in the news as saying he is keen to return to the fight. Why should the various people who he was shooting at not legitimately want him dead?

I could imagen that, if Turkey doesn't say sorry, Russia will say that every NATO airplane entering Syria with the goal to attack Assad troops, will get shutdown.

News suggested Russia wanted to play down this incident. i don't know if that is true, but the last thing they would want is active engagement by anyone on the side of the freedom fighters. I listened to some of the rhetoric comming from a Russian spokesman and concluded he was lying. It wasn't because their plane might on the evidence have beeen over Syria, but because he was claiming more than could be possible. This rather undermined all of what he was saying.

It may be that the reason Cameron et al want to engage in this war themselves is because they wish to confront Putin, rather than because they care anything about any of the rebel groups.

 

[dandelion]

Now here is an amusing thing. A friend of mine has views rather akin to Jason on most issues. But he was a little disturbed to find he is now in accord with Jeremy Corbyn. Having heard Cameron's nonsense on why we want to go to war, he concluded the whole thing was a very bad idea, and the only politicians making a strong stand against involvement in this war Is indeed the labour leader.

Jason, you have been very critical of Blair and his war. Are you you now standing proud against Cameron and his?

One of the tame experts on the radio this morning commented that from the perspective of ordinary Syrians, IS are preferable to Assad. Yet here we are, once again supporting the wrong side. Or at least, the side the local people do not want. Though perhaps they don't want either, but since there is no other choice...this is a recipe for yet more instability and chaos in the future.

All the tame experts (pro and anti) agreed there needed to be a plan of what comes after military intervention. And again they agreed there isnt one.

Heres a revolutionary idea. We don't want IS blowing up London. Maybe we should negotiate with them over an acceptable settlement?

 

[Jason]

Jason, you have been very critical of Blair and his war. Are you you now standing proud against Cameron and his?

I find the issues difficult. This isn't a cop-out - I really do struggle.

Our politicians need guidance. I do think Blair was wrong (the sexed up dossier) both legally and morally. Right now we have a case where we need the findings of the Chilcot Inquiry to feed into the present decision, and I find it shocking that the Inquiry has not reported. We certainly need a proper dossier from Cameron (which I think he will provide) and we need to be clear that the decision to go to war wasn't made with the USA months ago and is just being railroaded through (I don't think it is). We need proper scrutiny by Cabinet, by political parties and by individual MPs. Political parties have access to civil servants and legal advice that is not available to individual MPs, so the political party view is particularly important. In this case I certainly think Labour should be presenting a party view, whether for or against. All parties should accept that individual MPs may have a different view as a matter of conscience, but notwithstanding a party view is needed. Corbyn is failing to put forward a Labour party view (he's just shouting his view) which is a problem.

I think Cameron can make a case. I think the case needs to be listened to.

Within society we need to move in our treatment of ISIS. We need to be clear that it is a death cult (a term Hollande has publicly used). There is undoubtedly a hard-power response needed to destroy the territorial control of ISIS. The platitudes around we should talk are just that (but if Corbyn wants to go to Raqqa we should send him!) The precondition of the long process of getting rid of Islamic fundamentalism is to get rid of the territory they control. Whether the UK gets involved in this or lets others do it is a different matter.

 

[Drifterwood]

Mr. Corbyn represents the people who elect the Labour leader. Labour MP's represent the people who elect the Government.

Who is Mr. Corbyn leading? A Left Wing pressure group or Her Maj's elected Parliamentary Opposition?

I think enough MP's are smart enough to realise that Mr. Corbyn will never represent an electable Labour Government. Ergo he is in the wrong job. He isn't the leader of the parliamentary Labour Party. I can't see that he even understands what that Job is.

The way he is handling the ISIS issue makes this impasse abundantly clear. Perhaps even to Dandelion.

 

[vince]

The UK has been deeply involved in the process of creating the conditions that lead to the rise of IS. My first reaction is that they should bloody well help clean it up. But on second thought, given the track record in the Mideast over the past 100 years, it's probably best if they "let others do it".

 

[rbkwp]

haha nice Sunday wake up read vince, 'like' very much

a moment there i thought you were going to m/bike the hedgeway/stoneways of the UK mainly Scotland, better
did that in 79 on my honda 90 step thru new
fat wealthy germans x4 oin there expensive BMWs laughed there kraut arses off initially!!
2 eweeksa later, in a YHA up in Scotland, they were basically all over me
you made it they muttered, beers etc ha, was fun
i had the last laff of course
i took the hedge/stone way beauty original roads of course
had seen them about 3 x on the trip up ..

 

[Jason]

Mr. Corbyn represents the people who elect the Labour leader. Labour MP's represent the people who elect the Government.

Who is Mr. Corbyn leading? A Left Wing pressure group or Her Maj's elected Parliamentary Opposition?

I think enough MP's are smart enough to realise that Mr. Corbyn will never represent an electable Labour Government. Ergo he is in the wrong job. He isn't the leader of the parliamentary Labour Party. I can't see that he even understands what that Job is.

The way he is handling the ISIS issue makes this impasse abundantly clear. Perhaps even to Dandelion.

The responsibilities of a UK MP are set out. They have responsibilities towards two or three groups:
1) Constituents
2) Parliament
3) Party (if any).
The first two are linked. The MP represents the interests of their constituents (not just those that voted for them) in parliament; their responsibility to parliament is to debate, scrutinise and vote to represent the interests of parliament. The responsibility of MPs to their Party is of a lower order. There is plenty of protocol around country not party.

There is of course the situation where most MPs are elected on a party ticket and therefore with a party manifesto. It is often reasonable for an MP to argue that the party manifesto is the interest of the constituents. It is problematic however when a political party makes major changes in their manifesto after an election.

The Corbyn changes are such that the Labour party is advocating a set of economic, social, defence and foreign policies totally at odds with the manifesto on which Labour was elected. This puts MPs in a bind. There are options for them as individuals: they could become independents, or they could join another party whose present policies more closely represent the Labour manifesto on which they were elected. I appreciate these are not good options. It would be coherent for Labour MPs to resign in mass and fight by-elections on their new manifesto. It would also be coherent to say that the policy change of the opposition is of such a magnitude that a new general election is needed. This is problematic with the Fixed Term Parliament Act. However it could be triggered by an agreement of Conservative and Labour, or with Conservative plus 104 MPs (to make 2/3rds of parliament). I don't see that Labour would see this in their interest right now.

Presumably Labour will have a go at ousting Corbyn. They need a candidate, and they need to be sure Corbyn doesn't get 20%+ of the Parliamentary Labour Party backing him (surely he wouldn't, but it is a risk). The new Labour leader would need to set about kicking out the Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyites, Communists, friends of terrorists and various lunatics - a hard job.

If Labour fail to oust Corbyn they need to break away and form a New Labour party. In such a circumstance it may suit them to support a General Election in order to give them legitimacy. They would be without the debts and assets of Labour, which may have advantages.

 

[rbkwp]

that Chaps a naughty little cameron conservative, has been now aye
smoke/fire etc, Brits tend to be renowned for the confused mind ha

good on you Brits, givve it a go

Thousands rally in UK against bombing Syria

 

[eurotop40]

indeed

hope there is no censorship on rabbits here

 

[Drifterwood]

The UK has been deeply involved in the process of creating the conditions that lead to the rise of IS. My first reaction is that they should bloody well help clean it up. But on second thought, given the track record in the Mideast over the past 100 years, it's probably best if they "let others do it".

Was the Ottoman Empire a Caliphate?

 

[Jason]

Was the Ottoman Empire a Caliphate?

Caliphate describes the government structure of the Islamic world under the Umayyads and Abbasids, so during the expansion of Islam and through the Middle Ages. The early Ottomans claimed the title, but for most of the Ottoman Empire it wasn't actually used. It was revived as the Ottoman Empire declined as a way of asserting control over the fringes of the Ottoman Empire. The title was formally abolished by Turkey in the 1920s.

ISIS is making an appeal to what they see as the golden age of Islam. They are reviving an old title and an old concept. In effect they are giving disaffected Islamic youth a sense of pride and belonging not offered by the Arab states or by the European nations to which they have migrated. Right now it is difficult for an Islamic youth living in (say) Belgium to feel pride in Belgium, a nation deeply divided between Flemings and Walloons, with Fleming and Walloon ethnic identities which exclude outsiders. For an Islamic youth the golden age of the Caliphate can be presented as a matter of pride.

The Caliphate was opposed by the Crusaders (among many others), hence the Islamists desire for some sort of retribution for events of nearly a thousand years ago. It is unfortunate that the Russian Orthodox Church has declared Russia's involvement in Syria as a "holy fight", which is being interpreted as a Crusade. The warped logic of the Jihadists is that we have returned to the age of the Caliphate and the Crusades.

There's also the new idea of a "worldwide caliphate", of a single-state world which is an Islamic theocracy. This is the goal of ISIS. It is to be achieved in part through terrorism, in part through seizure of nuclear weapons and the threat of their use - in effect the end-game of ISIS is the surrender of every government. The nations of Europe are first in line.

Europe's response should be clear. It is not possible to tolerate the existence of territory held by ISIS. Getting rid of this territorial control is an essential prerequisite of a much wider policy of addressing the threat of the Islamists.

 

[vince]

Was the Ottoman Empire a Caliphate?

Yes it was and the caliphate along with the Sultan, was abolished about 90 years ago. Why do you ask?

 

[Drifterwood]

Yes it was and the caliphate along with the Sultan, was abolished about 90 years ago. Why do you ask?

A Caliph and his Caliphate is the successor to the Mohammedan Empire as far as I understand these things. The British had little to do with this phenomenon but of course have been drawn into it through their geo political influence in more recent history. It is not a chicken and egg. The Caliphate came first and we have some pretenders to that throne. The Ottoman Caliphate is central to fighting them.