|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
https://twitter.com/davidsonhrj/status/839472899970957312
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
Entropy238 posted:Is there a UKMT thread consensus on George Galloway? Good man or bad man? Bad kitty
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:alright, it's time to own up - who gave jfairfax the michael gove skinsuit? Is Theresa May pushing through the pedophile inquiry? I rest my case
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36506163 watch it here you lazy fucks
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:That sounds really scary to those of us unlikely to be able to leave. I don't see anywhere in Europe as particularly enticing and while I have a degree it's not STEM or in demand so the chances of getting a job or being head hunted is low-impossible. Am I going to die? If the best course of action is to literally flee if you can what the gently caress is going to happen to us that can't? You're giving me a panic attack. What you don't like the sound of the Netherlands? or Sunny Lisbon, or Barce-loving-lona?! Or France with all it's delicious wine? Berlin is a great place to live by all accounts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
It'll be fine. Economics is all made up stuff anyway. The sky will not fall and the UK will still be one of the safest, best places to live on this stupid planet. Will still be full of cunts mind, but it was before.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
he is a referee
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:How do you actually go about doing it? Moving abroad that is. By hook and crook I am actually possessed of 20 years experience of technical stuff that is well employable pretty much everywhere I guess but if you are the hiring manager in a town in Ecuador and one of the CV's you receive is from a bloke who is currently in Essex and cant speak Spanish you arent putting that to the top of the list are you. Face to face interview would be a bit problematic as well wouldn't it. The simplest way is a company that has operations in both the UK and the country you want to move to. But if you genuinely do have marketable skills the best way is just to save up, move over to the new country and apply for jobs there. If you're applying for IT jobs it might be easier to do it remotely, but just change your LinkedIN profile / resume to have an address in your new locale. If you back yourself, you have to take a chance, but if you have enough money for 3 months at least in the new place then that should be ample time to find some sort of job. Having english is also a big marketable skill.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Never seem to get to that point. I've earned loads and payed poo poo loads of tax over the years but between supporting my ex and our kid and paying the loving rent I never seem to get ahead. Just stop paying child support and alimony. I mean you'll be leaving the country anyway so they won't be able to get you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Yeah I don't understand how you move without getting headhunted. I probably could get some job but i'm not valuable enough to get head hunted so I have no idea how to get the foot in the door. you make poo poo happen. do your research, find a company with overseas locations and apply for jobs with them. it's a lot easier to do an internal company transfer, and there are lots of companies with international operations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
portugal you loving numbskulls
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
Taear posted:She says she'll kill herself while sat crying in the living room every day. She's drunk and SUPER loud talking incessantly and laughing out loud as loudly as possible at anything everyone says. If you put something on she's loudly asking questions through it all the time constantly. tell her to put up or shut up
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
It could also be the medication that is making her feel suicidal thoughts. That's a fun side effect of some depression medications. It's a tough situation, a friend of mine was bi-polar and killed herself out of the blue and it's hard on everyone involved. Especially when her mother had done the same thing, her brothers and father especially just looked broken at her funeral. At least you know there's a problem, but it must be incredibly frustrating to not get much in the way of your friend taking steps to help themself.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Taear posted:As I said - I'm not facilitating it. I'm not doing anything at all any more. But my housemate who IS trying to "help" has come to ask what to do. You have my sympathy, I've never had to deal with a proper alcoholic but she sounds like she's properly in the hole with that. If you're on vodka and cannot cope with it being poured away, you're an alcoholic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Honestly if you're broke and people keep pouring away your theoretical property while you're trying to work through some kind of massive crisis I would understand being somewhat livid. would u say the same thing if they were throwing away her crack?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
nigganometry is however a branch of mathematics / logic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0ncfiPsMg
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Sounds like good politics to me as Corbyn to me as the press is now firmly up in arms against the Govt. Well played Corbyn
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
the presenter lady points to it, gesturing in disbelief
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
Paxman posted:PA have published fuller details about what Jeremy Corbyn said about a second Scottish referendum, including the question he was asked. the reporter is trying to get him to make a prediction about something over which he has no control, he's giving a good answer stating that if there is another referendum it's not a problem, people have the right to do that and he makes the point that it seems the SNP are just centralising power around themselves. CORBYN THINKS SCOTTISH REFERENDUM INEVITABLE is the headline the reporter wanted and didn't get. I see nothing wrong with that answer, there is zero point in making a prediction about the inevitability or not for another referendum for scotland.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
why would he hope there isn't? he believes that people have a right to referenda if they want them, if the scots want it, let them have it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:He could hope Scots continue to not want another referendum? sorry you need something in baby's first sound-byte form to process
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
the question said "Do you think a referendum is inevitable?" does the labour party have a position on the inevitability of a second indyref? he wasn't asked about the position labour have on a referendum, he was asked to make a prediction about the certainty of an event happening which is a frankly ridiculous request.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:So Jeremy cannot be expected to speak about what he thinks should or shouldn't happen because that would be 'a prediction'. being asked if you think something is inevitable is not the same as being asked if that thing should happen. they are different questions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
the right to self determination is a fundamental one
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
that's not what self-determination means in this context. The scottish people have the right to determine if they are an independent country or not. The UK people have the right to choose their government, they chose a Tory one. Your wish to be ruled by a government other than Tories is irrelevant. Now if you wish to say the North of England becomes it's own country, or Middlesbrough an independent city state you could campaign for the right for the people in those areas to determine that. For someone who talks about politics an awful lot, you really don't have a good grasp of some of the fundamental concepts.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
They do have that right Pissflaps, all of the examples you gave. It's a fundamental concept of politics since world war one and enshrined in the Charters of the UN since it's inception. Now granted it hasn't always worked out in practice, but theoretically it's a fundamental right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I'd never seen this before. This is really, really lame. It's like babby's first fascism is bad video. So heavy handed. I went full fash in that and I'm now a fascist god-king of Wessex
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Should be a doddle for you to back this claim up then? It's what world war II was fought about : A. Historical Background 1 The political origins of the modern concept of self-determination can be traced back to the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America of 4 July 1776, which proclaimed that governments derived ‘their just powers from the consent of the governed’ and that ‘whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it’. The principle of self-determination was further shaped by the leaders of the French Revolution, whose doctrine of popular sovereignty, at least initially, required renunciation of all wars of conquest and contemplated annexation[s] of territory to France only after plebiscites. 2 During the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century the principle of self-determination was interpreted by nationalist movements as meaning that each nation had the right to constitute an independent State and that only nationally homogeneous States were legitimate. This so-called ‘principle of nationalities’ provided the basis for the formation of a number of new States and finally, at the end of World War I, for the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman Empires. The principle of self-determination was also prominent in the unification processes of Germany and Italy, which to a large degree were based on national characteristics in which plebiscites played an important part (Germany, Unification of). 3 Self-determination further evolved when it was espoused by the socialist movement and the Bolshevik revolution. Defined and developed by Lenin and Stalin, the principle of self-determination was represented as one of international law. It should, however, be mentioned that the right of self-determination in Soviet doctrine existed only for cases where it served the cause of class conflict and so-called socialist justice; it was only a tactical means to serve the aims of world communism and not an end in itself. 4 During World War I, the President of the United States Wilson championed the principle of self-determination as it became crystallized in the Fourteen Points of Wilson (1918). Although this proposal formed the basis of the peace negotiations with the Central Powers, self-determination was subsequently far from fully realized in the Paris peace treaties. It was, however, reflected in a number of plebiscites held by the Allies in some disputed areas and it was one of the basic components of a series of treaties concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations for the protection of minorities (see also Minority Protection System between World War I and World War II). Finally, in Art. 22 Covenant of the League of Nations, the mandates system was devised as a compromise solution between the ideal of self-determination and the interests of the administrative powers. However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept. This was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and its expert advisors in the Åland Islands dispute of 1920–21 even though, in the particular circumstances of the case, autonomy rights were granted to the population concerned (Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Åland Islands Question 5). B. Manifestations under the Aegis of the United Nations 1. Incorporation into the Charter of the United Nations 5 The principle of self-determination was invoked on many occasions during World War II. It was also proclaimed in the Atlantic Charter (1941) (Declaration of Principles of 14 August 1941), in which President Roosevelt of the United States and Prime Minister Churchill of the United Kingdom declared, inter alia, that they desired to see ‘no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned’ (Principle 2 Atlantic Charter), that they respected ‘the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live’ (Principle 3 Atlantic Charter) and that they wished to see ‘sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them’ (Principle 3 Atlantic Charter). The provisions of the Atlantic Charter were restated in the Declaration by United Nations (United Nations (UN)) signed on 1 January 1942, in the Moscow Declaration of 1943 and in other important instruments of the time. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873 Also relevant: (a) Right to Self-Determination: Instances 14 (i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute. In the peace treaties after World War I, and in the cases of Kashmir (after 1948), the Saar Territory (1955), and Algeria’s struggle for independence, the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, and in the Agreement on Ending War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (1973) the parties expressly recognized the South Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination. 15 (ii) Self-determination—as a result of the practice of the UN under Chapters XI to XIII UN Charter—clearly emerged as the legal foundation of the law of decolonization. As expressly affirmed by the ICJ both in Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion) (1971) para. 52 and in Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) (1975) paras 54–59, it became applicable to non-self-governing territories, trust territories and mandates, notwithstanding the differences and the qualifications of the respective constituent instruments (South West Africa/Namibia [Advisory Opinions and Judgments]; Western Sahara [Advisory Opinion]). As such, it includes the right of the population of a territory freely to determine its future political status. Furthermore, the Friendly Relations Declaration recognized that the territory of a colony or other non-self-governing territory has, under the UN Charter, reached a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it. It is generally concluded that, as a consequence of this qualification, the use of force to prevent the exercise of self-determination of a colonial people has become unlawful (see also Use of Force, Prohibition of), as has the assistance of third parties to the metropolitan powers in their effort to frustrate self-determination. On the other hand, it should be noted that armed support of colonial liberation movements is not considered legal by a number of States and was not recognized as such, for lack of consensus, in the Friendly Relations Declaration. Furthermore, it must be noted that the uti possidetis doctrine guided the process of decolonization and thus contributed to the realization of self-determination in that it guaranteed that borders between former colonies—or non-self-governing territories—or administrative borders that were drawn during colonization, would be maintained (see Frontier Dispute [Burkina Faso/Mali] paras 20–25; Frontier Dispute Case [Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali]). 16 (iii) Self-determination might be considered to apply, as was suggested by the Commission of Rapporteurs in the Åland Islands case in 1921, in situations where the existence and extension of territorial sovereignty is altogether uncertain. 17 (iv) Self-determination includes the right of a people of an existing State to choose freely their own political system and to pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development. As such it does not, in light of the current state of international law, impose on all States the duty to introduce or maintain a democratic form of government, but essentially refers to the principle of sovereign equality of States and the prohibition of intervention which are already part of international law (Intervention, Prohibition of; States, Sovereign Equality). However, recent scholarly work suggests a more nuanced approach to self-determination in this regard (see paras 33–39 and 41–44 below).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
‘the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live' if you no longer wish to be part of a state, you don't have to be. But obviously depending on the state you are part of it can be hard work to become independent. now that state might fight back, and a lot of it depends on geo-politics but the break up of the former Yugoslavia is an example of people no longer wanting to be part of a state and new ones being created. States are not immutable immovable objects, they're legal constructs and can be altered. I posted the link right there Pissflaps, here it is again for you: http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873 It's a well cited source. Seriously, this isn't a contentious issue. It's why for me the Declaration of Independence is a far more powerful document than the US Constitution.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
That's from the Atlantic Charter of 1941, Principle 2 and it was restated a few times: 5 "The principle of self-determination was invoked on many occasions during World War II. It was also proclaimed in the Atlantic Charter (1941) (Declaration of Principles of 14 August 1941), in which President Roosevelt of the United States and Prime Minister Churchill of the United Kingdom declared, inter alia, that they desired to see ‘no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned’ (Principle 2 Atlantic Charter), that they respected ‘the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live’ (Principle 3 Atlantic Charter) and that they wished to see ‘sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them’ (Principle 3 Atlantic Charter). The provisions of the Atlantic Charter were restated in the Declaration by United Nations (United Nations (UN)) signed on 1 January 1942, in the Moscow Declaration of 1943 and in other important instruments of the time." http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873 If we look at the UN Charter: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/ 2 - To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; self determination of peoples is enshrined in the second paragraph of the UN Charter Chapter 1. And self-determination is ‘the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live'. It's that simple.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Why doesn't the UN guarantee my right to a life in UKMT free from pointless arguments with Pissflaps over pedantry & boring minutia? Teaching the slow takes time. Sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
It's from the Atlantic Charter that pre-dated the UN Charter, but informed it as many of the same actors were involved in it. Self-determination is NOT the right not to be invaded, that's a gross misunderstanding. IF the scotish had voted for independence in a process recognised by the british government then the UN states would have recognised Scotland as an independent nation. The UN doesn't have to get involved in the process of self-determination, rather it has said it will recognise it when it occurs. The first Article of the UN is not explicitly talking about member countries, it sets out the purpose of the UN, Article 2 is where they start to talk about members. JFairfax fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Mar 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Yup, correct big scary monsters. You have to be powerful enough to make your push for independence stick.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You're contradicting yourself. If a requirement for self determination of a part of a country is that the country they wish to secede from itself recognises the process, then that is not self determination. It's not a requirement, see Taiwan. It just makes it a lot easier and with less bloodshed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Yes, he is correct - largely because he's saying the opposite of you. he really isn't, I stated repeatedly that sadly the theory of self-determination doesn't always match with the reality on the ground. Palestine would be an obvious example of this, a people that desperately want a country but are thwarted by powerful forces. Or all those left wing governments the USA overthrew. Something being a right and those rights routinely being abused or ignored are not exclusive things.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Why hasn't the UN recognised Catalonia as an independent state? Because it isn't one yet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Yes, see Taiwan, which is legally not separate from China and is recognised by no major nation. practically speaking Taiwan is an independent country. Come on, the US relations with the place are pretty normalised.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:...because it isn't recognised as one. because no-one gives that much of a poo poo, not even the catalans, they only got a 42% turnout for their last referendum. If they manage to get a good majority then things might be different.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
I think Scotland, and indeed Britain would love to have the high quality electronic and semi-conductor manufacturing industry of Taiwan. They make pretty much all the motherboards and memory for all the computers around the world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:No-one gives a poo poo? Is that right? not really, self-determination requires a majority of people supporting it. A million catalans marching shows that there is widespread support for it, clearly, but until they either forcibly declare independence from spain and set up as an independent country, or get a good victory at the polls there is not much for the UN to support or even weigh in on, for now it's an internal issue especially as it's peaceful. But also as we know the UN is mired in politics and does not always effectively uphold the lofty goals which it aims to support. However, plenty of people around the world support Catalan independence. Also over a million people marched against Blair's war. Didn't stop it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 13:21
|
|
