brexit?!!?

[ahinton]

Questions for Thal:

You have clarified that you advocate not only UK leaving EU but the abolition of EU alogether; do you also advocate
1. UK leaving Council of Europe?
2. The abolition of Council of Europe?
3. The break-up of UK into an as yet unspecified number of individual independent nations?
4. Borders between all European nations (including ex-UK ones) manned permanently by security staff?
5. Visa requirements for travel between any pair of European nations?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. Yes
5. No

If you want more than that out of me, then bollox.

Thal

[ahinton]

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. Yes
5. No

If you want more than that out of me, then bollox.

Well, thanks for that. This is interesting in clarifying your position. I'm afraid that "bollox" is not a product that I import or export and so it is unaffected by whether or not UK remains within the EU single market, Brexit or no Brexit.

So you would like UK to leave Council of Europe; is that because it would exonerate UK from responsibilities under ECHR (which falls within CoE's jurisdiction) or might there be other reasons for your view? You have expressed grave reservsations about ECHR, so perhaps this is your reason, but you might (also) have others, of course.

You do not, however, advocate the abolition of CoE itself as you do the disintegration of EU; this would mean that you support the idea that 46 European nations remain CoE members (and therefore subject to ECHR). Is there a reason why you consider CoE to be a valid organisation for those 46 member states and, if so, in what way/s would you see UK's case as different from theirs?

You don't want UK to break up; fine. Nor do I, as it happens, so I assme you not to advocate security staffed borders between its four current constituent nations, but at the same time I presume that you would advocate one between NI and Ireland.

You answered "Yes" to 4., but the question included ex-UK nations and, from your answer to 3., I assume that you would not expect there to be such borders between each of UK's current four constituent nations and that you accordingly advocate free movement of people, including immigrants already in any of those four UK nations, to any of the others.

It's interesting that, despite advocating secured borders between all European nations (other than those current constituent ones of UK), you nevertheless oppose the introduction of visa requirements for travel anywhere within Europe, although in this I agree with you entirely.

However, what would you perceive as the purpose of such secure borders in the absence of such visa requirements? What exactly would they keep in check? Wouldn't visa-free travel within Europe be broadly synonymous with free movement of people with Europe notwithstanding those border security checks? In other words, these increased security checks in the absence of visa requirements would just hold up queues at airports, ports, &c. rather as is happening in Dover right now.

Perhaps your advocacy of such border restrictions is to check on free movement of people into and out of Europe rather than within it and this, of course, is another matter altogether from what happens within Europe and makes some sense.

I know that you are concerned about people being "let in" to anywhere in Europe from outside that continent and, in principle, I understand that but, if free movement is possible anywhere within Europe without visas, I presume you to advocate visa requirements for anyone entering any part of Europe from outside, which is fair enough as far as it goes.

However, what I understand from your advocacy is visa-free movement between European nations for European citizens only, so that anyone from, say, US, Canada, Iran, Saudi Arabia wanting to travel from Austria to Portugal should still be expected to have an appropriate visa for that purpose. That's fine, of course, but it leads us back to what defines a "European citizen".

As you support the continuation of CoE, it might seem logical to define a "European citizen" as a citizen of any CoE member state; however, as you advocate UK leaving CoE, that would put UK citizens at a disadvantage because they would fall outside that definition of "European citizens" and would therefore have to be treated separately from "European citizens" (as defined by coming from CoE member states) in that they'd require travel visas that "European citizens" would not.

Complicated, isn't it?!

It's not up to me, of course but, as you advocate CoE's survival, it would seem logical that UK remains one of its member states, otherwise its citizens would be placed in a disadvantageous position compared to "European citizens".

Anyway, thanks at least for answering the questions and engaging with this issue; if you wonder why I've written at such length in response to your answers, it's because I take them as seriously as the questions themselves.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Back to unread due to excessive length.

Well done to or new Chancellor for starting off negotiations for a trade deal with China. Something we have not been able to do when shackled to the failing EU.

Whilst Brexit was supposed to split the Tories, it appears to have not and instead, I sit back and laugh at the silly lefties destroying each other.

Long live the Tories and the UK. Death to Labour.

Thal

[ahinton]

Time for more links:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36877568
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36834977 and
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-general-election-eu-referendum-leave-tory-chairman-patrick-mcloughlin-a7153141.html

So, A50'll be triggered by the time of the next UK General Election, which is at present scheduled to be in just under four years' time - and the referendum outcome is binding but also it isn't; in the spirit of "Uxbridge English Dictionary" rounds in I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, "Brexit means "Brexit" but also apparently "Binding means Non-binding" - well, "technically", anyway...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Back to unread due to excessive length.

Your loss!

Well done to or new Chancellor for starting off negotiations for a trade deal with China. Something we have not been able to do when shackled to the failing EU.

But he hasn't actually done that yet; indeed, neither he nor anyone else can do anything other than informally announce possible intent until such time as A50's been triggered.

Whilst Brexit was supposed to split the Tories, it appears to have not and instead, I sit back and laugh at the silly lefties destroying each other.

Labour is indeed tearing itself apart and the public spectacle of how they're doing it is scary, although the nature of the internecine wars within that party clarifies that what's happening to it's not just because of Brexit.

Death to Labour.

Not much need to wish for that; Labour seems to be making quite a good enough job of that without any external assistance!

That said, if the outcome of all of this is that there's no credible opposition for the foreseeable future, that can only bode ill for all parties, as a number of Conservatives have already rightly observed.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Time for more links:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36877568
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36834977 and
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-general-election-eu-referendum-leave-tory-chairman-patrick-mcloughlin-a7153141.html

So, A50'll be triggered by the time of the next UK General Election, which is at present scheduled to be in just under four years' time - and the referendum outcome is binding but also it isn't; in the spirit of "Uxbridge English Dictionary" rounds in I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, "Brexit means "Brexit" but also apparently "Binding means Non-binding" - well, "technically", anyway...

Best,

Alistair

I wouldn't trust the BBC for impartial reporting and even less that worthless lefty bog paper sometimes known as The Guardian.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Your loss!
But he hasn't actually done that yet; indeed, neither he nor anyone else can do anything other than informally announce possible intent until such time as A50's been triggered.

There is nothing to stop him. We can hardly be thrown out of the EU.

Thal

[ahinton]

I wouldn't trust the BBC for impartial reporting and even less that worthless lefty bog paper sometimes known as The Guardian.

You have to trust or distrust whomsoever you do.

Anyone who cares about UK can only hope that whatever negotiations ensue whenever they do will be successful. One thing that I've always felt needs to be reformed within EU is its member states' ability - or rather entitlement - to work out trade deals with nations outside EU; this is in the interests of all EU member states and thereby in EU's own interests, but EU has not helped with this. This needs to change. Without UK within EU, the chances that it will do so will sadly lessen, I believe.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

There is nothing to stop him. We can hardly be thrown out of the EU.

We could in theory, but we won't be. Trade negotiations in general are bound to be in something of a rut for the time being, especially in view of the raft of uncertainty that currently prevails and will likely remain so until matters can move forward (but see my last post).

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Yet again, the German people pay the price for the failure of their government to control their borders. Now the idiot Merkel must act and deport all failed asylum seekers without delay.

It is only a matter of time before it happens in the UK.

Thal

[ahinton]

Yet again, the German people pay the price for the failure of their government to control their borders. Now the idiot Merkel must act and deport all failed asylum seekers without delay.

You'd better tell her what to do, then, as she seems not to realise of her own accord.

It is only a matter of time before it happens in the UK.

Not unless you first tell Ms May to ensure that it does, presumably.

Are you therefore opposed in principle to asylum seeking, anywhere?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I wouldn't trust the BBC for impartial reporting and even less that worthless lefty bog paper sometimes known as The Guardian.

But the last quote above was from The Independent; none is from The Guardian. Would you trust The Independent?

Anyway, one of the aspects of EU that requires reforming for the benefit of all of its member states is the ability to forge trade deals outside it as well as within it; again, an UK within EU would clearly be in a better position to negotiate this over time than would an EU outside it.

I regard EU not so much as a "failed experiment" (as you do) but as one which began as a very good idea but which has at times been wont to wander off course to the point that the experiment has lost some of its direction; whether it's gone too far down cetain roads to correct those of its policies and actions that are flawed I cannot say, but any prospect that its entire edifice falls apart will harbour dangers for all of its ex-members; what an unholy mess that would be!

As for France (whose FN threatens to pull France out of the Union should it win next year), if le Pen succeeds in the elections it will largely be down to the woeful inadequacy of Hollande, just as Trump becoming US President will largely be down to the woeful inadequacy of Clinton. In the latter case, the prospect of having a massive border erected between southern US states and Mexico built by the Mexicans at their own expense would be about as risible as that of France building one around its entire coastline by and at the expense of the Spanish, the Irish and the Brits; fortunately, it ain't gonna happen in either case.

Anyway, while you're all for having borders put up between every European country (except within UK), let's hope that borders around the Netherlands are not too stringent to allow a duly escorted Mr Anthony Blair to enter that country in due course and have unhindered passage to den Haag once there (OK, wrong thread, but...)...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

As if seven legal challenges weren't enough, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-36878959?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120&link_location=live-reporting-story

I don't think that this can reasonably be regarded as biased BBC reporting, since it appears only to present a fact.

In addition, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36878081?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120&link_location=live-reporting-story

There are those (including me) who do not favour the break-up of UK, but it won't especially matter what we think; it will be up to the administrations in Scotland and NI alone to decide whether or not they wish to sever conections with UK in order to try to remain within EU, a fact of which Ms May will be only too well aware and which no doubt she, as having declared from the outset of her Prime Ministership her support for maintenance of the Union, will duly bear in mind in her dealings with Scotland's and NI's leaders.

Whatever anyone's views about Brexit, the break-up or otherwise of UK and all the rest, one thing alone is certain in these most uncertain of times - and that is that there is no precedent for an EU member state trying to leave EU; for this reason alone, it is only reasonable to point out that both UK and EU are sailing into uncharted waters over the referendum outcome and what if anything UK can and should do about it.

Anyway, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-uk-change-mind-article-50-legal-expert-eu-referendum-a7150926.html

It certainly ain't over yet...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Are you therefore opposed in principle to asylum seeking, anywhere?

Only to the UK. What other Countries do is down to them.

Thal

[ahinton]

Only to the UK. What other Countries do is down to them.

That's interesting. Why's that, then? By which I mean what do you perceive as the moral difference between UK's responsibility towards and/or treatment of them and that of other nations? Of course the government of each country has to make its own decisions on it, as you quite rightly point out, but I remain curious as to what you appear to see as so different between UK and everywhere else in terms of the general moral obligation to address the issue of genuine asylum seekers.

As far as I am concerned, genuine asylum seekers have the same desperate needs regardless of the countries in which they might seek asylum; where and for what reason/s might you differ from such a view?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I do not believe we have any moral obligation to let in anyone. We do it as a compassionate Country, but it appears that a lot of whom we let in are coming from Countries where there is little or no danger.

The recent horrific attacks carried out by those seeking asylum indicate to me that it should be stopped in full and all illegals and failed asylum seekers should be deported immediately. Yet again, the French have suffered an appalling attack. I wonder from where these particular animals originate.

The first duty of all governments is to protect its people.

Thal

[ahinton]

I do not believe we have any moral obligation to let in anyone. We do it as a compassionate Country, but it appears that a lot of whom we let in are coming from Countries where there is little or no danger.

The recent horrific attacks carried out by those seeking asylum indicate to me that it should be stopped in full and all illegals and failed asylum seekers should be deported immediately. Yet again, the French have suffered an appalling attack. I wonder from where these particular animals originate.

The first duty of all governments is to protect its people.

The recent attacks in France and Germany are indeed appalling and deserve all of our sympathy. However, what you forget when writing of governments "letting people in" is that many perpetrators are already present in the countries concerned. Whilst the latest German one appears to have been down to a failed asylum seeker, unless all countries ban all asylum applications from anywhere in an effort to stop anyone even coming near them, people will apply, successfully or otherwise.

Failed asylum seekers ought indeed to be deported at the earliest opportunity; I don't know how long the German one had remained in Germany since refusal of his application - do you?

A larger problem is atrocities committed by people already living legally in the victim countries.

I agree about deporting illegals once found, but they usually enter not via formal channels as do asylum seekers but surreptitiously; to stop this inevitably means employing vastly more security staff. This is a particular problem for UK because its "border" is its coastline - 12,429km without the larger islands and 31,368km including them; that's an enormous policing operation to be carried out 24/7 and would be unaffordable.

Another factor that we have to consider is remote action (including radicalisation) and its potential and actual outcomes. Those determined to wreak havoc don't necessarily have to enter countries in which they wish to do so, as they can either do this remotely (by using drones, for example) or remotely radicalisation people already living legally in the countries concerned. Stopping either of those will be far harder than merely trying to restrict entrants into those countries.

The other problem with refusing entry is the impossibility of determining whether particular would-be entrants might pose a risk. If Scotland leaves UK (which we both hope that it will not), hardly anyone will want a heavily security controlled border between it and England, but those with sufficiently long memories might recall the terrorists who entered USA via Canada and use that as an excuse to advocate such a border.

A further issue is that some perpatrators of horrific attacks claim to have been inspired by - and indeed obsessed with - historical mass killings and maimings, the majority of which have so far been carried out not in Europe but in US, largely as a consequence of its comparatively lax firearms laws which really need to be tightened considerably. I see that Germany is wisely looking to do this following recent events there.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Nice short message

[ahinton]

Nice short message

Thank you. "As many notes as I needed", as Mozart once said when accused of having written too many.

The number of words is that which I need to respond to all of your points in a way that demonstrates that I take them as seriously as they deserve; I have just edited that post and shortened it slightly, however.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The other problem with refusing entry is the impossibility of determining whether particular would-be entrants might pose a risk. 

If they are Muslim they pose a risk and all should be refused entry. Trump (for once) appears to have the right idea.

Thal

[ahinton]

If they are Muslim they pose a risk and all should be refused entry. Trump (for once) appears to have the right idea.

I fear that I do not believe that; accusing all Muslims of being risks to anywhere will only serve to exacerbate relations everywhere. Of course some terrorists function under the name of Islam, rightly or wrongly (and mostly wrongly) but branding all of them as risks to everyone else will only end up resulting in all Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians and the rest (as well as Muslims) branded likewise, as though anyone and everyone who purports to ally themselves to any and all religions are potential or actual death to everyone else. Not a great idea for the future, methinks.

Also, what does or should an attitude that suggests that all Muslims are a risk to everyone else (and perhaps also to themselvers and their like) mean in terms of all Muslims living anywhere? It might almost suggest that the entire world should be purged of Muslims regardless. What do you say about that and how would you equate it to what you would hope for the appropriate treatment of members of any other religious groups anywhere?

Best,

Alistair

[huaidongxi]

alienating and polarising an entire group of people based on their religious or ethnic affiliation or skin tone has been demonstrated over and again and the worst means to cope with cross cultural or political tensions.  exclusion is but a variation of apartheid or the nazi purity preferences.

as an amerikaner, following this dialogue between the two of you in the u.k. has been enlightening, dankon meine herren.

[ahinton]

alienating and polarising an entire group of people based on their religious or ethnic affiliation or skin tone has been demonstrated over and again and the worst means to cope with cross cultural or political tensions.  exclusion is but a variation of apartheid or the nazi purity preferences.

as an amerikaner, following this dialogue between the two of you in the u.k. has been enlightening, dankon meine herren.

You're welcome.

I could not agree more. Phrases lke "the Islamisation of Europe" only serve to assist in fomenting trouble. The curious thing is that, although ISIS' terrorist atrocities in France help to encourage support there forits extreme right wing FN (whose attitude towards Muslims is not so different to Trump's in US), there are those within ISIS and other like organisations who welcome this. Why? Because it can lead to a situation in which France can continue to disrupt itself without external encouragement from such terrorist groups so that they can move on elsewhere to cause trouble.

Those who support extreme right wing nationalist parties in Europe would do well to bear this in mind. ISIS and similar organisations are not just wreaking havoc in Western European countries, they're seeking to set citizens of those countries against one another by fomenting the very polarisations to which you rightly draw attention in the hope that these nations, as well as the groups of nations such as EU and CoE, will ultimately implode and collapse.

It's all too tempting to consider such terrorist groups as characterised by people with more bombs than brains; whilst such people do indeed infect such organisations, that remains a vey dangerously complacent viewpoint indeed.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Also, what does or should an attitude that suggests that all Muslims are a risk to everyone else (and perhaps also to themselvers and their like) mean in terms of all Muslims living anywhere? It might almost suggest that the entire world should be purged of Muslims regardless. What do you say about that and how would you equate it to what you would hope for the appropriate treatment of members of any other religious groups anywhere?

I have long been of the opinion that the World would be a better place with no religion at all. It might have been relevant to Stone/Bronze age people, but it serves no purpose in a modern civilized society. Saying that and taking into consideration the stupid bombings carried out by the West, Islam and its teachings is by far the most dangerous and to continue to allow in people into Europe from Countries you have bombed is monumentally stupid. Countries like France and Germany continue to be punished by its feeble attempts to stamp out radicalisation and an attack is well overdue in the UK.

I live in an area that has one of the highest Sikh populations in the UK and in my 50 years living in the area, I cannot remember even one incidence of even mild intolerance. Our pathetic governments over the last few years seem to lack the balls to deal with the worst type of Islam and hatred festers in numerous mosques and faith schools that should be closed down. To shut our borders to further Muslim asylum seekers until ISIS have been defeated would seem to me to be a sensible course of action.

However, if you do not recognise there is a problem, you will never be able to deal with it.

Thal

[ahinton]

I have long been of the opinion that the World would be a better place with no religion at all. It might have been relevant to Stone/Bronze age people, but it serves no purpose in a modern civilized society.

I know that you take that view and I am not about to try to disabuse you of it as it is your prerogative to hold it; I simply happen not to share it. Rather like capitalism, what causes so much suffering is not religions themselves but the corrupt and corrupted pratice thereof, most especially the commission of acts of anti-humanity in their names.

Saying that and taking into consideration the stupid bombings carried out by the West

A stupidity with which I agree entirely; Western nations had no business whatsoever to do such things other than as reprisals for threats to them and to their stability and, since none of the nations so bombed has threatened to overthrow Western governments, let alone tried to carry out such threats, those aggressive Western nations are reaping what they were stupid enough to sow - not that this is any excuse, of course.

Islam and its teachings is by far the most dangerous

Were that true (and it isn't), why do you suppose that the majority of Western Muslims, including Imams and other clerics, speak out so vociferously against terrorist atrocities carried out in the name of Islam? If the majority of Muslims everywhere supported such action, they would also declare their allegiance to "Islamic" terrorist organisations and we'd all very soon known about it from the results!

to continue to allow in people into Europe from Countries you have bombed is monumentally stupid.

Not everyone from such countries is of terrorist bent and, as you have already rightly pointed out, bombing them in the first place was monumentally stupid so, even if you are right about this (which I do not believe that you are), it would only be a case of one sheer stupidity against another.

Countries like France and Germany continue to be punished by its feeble attempts to stamp out radicalisation and an attack is well overdue in the UK.

Indeded, but one difference here is that neither France nor Germany did anything like as much in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan (for example) as did US and UK.

I live in an area that has one of the highest Sikh populations in the UK and in my 50 years living in the area, I cannot remember even one incidence of even mild intolerance.

That's most interesting, although unsurprising; it also shows that you can and indeed do distinguish between criminals who act against the person (whether or not in the name of a religion) and peaceful, law-abiding citizens whether followers of a religion or not.

Our pathetic governments over the last few years seem to lack the balls to deal with the worst type of Islam and hatred festers in numerous mosques and faith schools that should be closed down.

Many of the hate crimes, of which more than 6,000 have been reported since the referendum result was announced (back to the topic momentarily!), have been carried out against non-Muslims in UK and mainly against immigrants. Government is now seeking to address this as indeed it must. I don't, however, see these hate crimes as any different to, or better or worse than, those carried out in the name of Islam. Although it would be a violation of the human rights of that majority of law-abiding Muslims to close down its faith schools without doing the same with all other faith schools, I think that it would be a good thing to phase out all faith schools.

To shut our borders to further Muslim asylum seekers until ISIS have been defeated would seem to me to be a sensible course of action.

Whilst I understand your viewpoint here, not all asylum seekers are Muslims anyway and you had earlier advocated closing European borders to all asylum seekers, if I understood you correctly. Defeating ISIS and other terrorist groups is, however, of vital importance.

However, if you do not recognise there is a problem, you will never be able to deal with it.

I think that most people realise that there's a problem, but dealing with it successfully requires a thorough and pragmatic understanding of what that problem actually is, a determination not to exacerbate it and a strategy for disposing of it once and for all.

Many thanks for your thoughts on this.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Were that true (and it isn't), why do you suppose that the majority of Western Muslims, including Imams and other clerics, speak out so vociferously against terrorist atrocities carried out in the name of Islam? If the majority of Muslims everywhere supported such action, they would also declare their allegiance to "Islamic" terrorist organisations and we'd all very soon known about it from the results!

You are bordering between naive and dumb here. Words are meaningless without action and the Muslim community is not exactly known for coming forward and reporting terrorists amongst them.  If memory serves their religion forbids it. In addition, they are permitted to lie in order to deceive non believers.

If you wish to be reduced to dhimmitude then you are becoming part of the problem.

Thal

[ahinton]

You are bordering between naive and dumb here.

If you say so.

Words are meaningless without action and the Muslim community is not exactly known for coming forward and reporting terrorists amongst them.

As I told you, a number of Muslim clerics in UK have approached their local MPs about this problem.

If memory serves their religion forbids it. In addition, they are permitted to lie in order to deceive non believers.

Identify for me people - and organisations to which some of them belong - who do not deceive; can you find any?

The only way that you could try to deal with this from your perspective is to begin not only by trying to stop any Muslims from entering UK (or anywhere else in Europe) but also by deporting all Muslims from UK, whether or not they have a record for having caused or incited any kind of trouble.

How would you do that? You just couldn't. So, if you're nevertheless right about this, we're all just going to have to live with whatever happens, indefinitely, as has already been said.

If you wish to be reduced to dhimmitude then you are becoming part of the problem.

I have no idea what "dhimmitude" means beyond what is provided courtesy of Wiki at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude but I do accept that I am part of the problem and have always been so, at least in your terms; I am not a Muslim and have never belonged to that or any other religious group, I have never committed or condoned the commission of terrorist atrocities against anyone - and neither of those conditions is about to change.

I am, however, an immigrant from Scotland, so that would appear, on your terms, to be the only reason for which you suggest that I am (becoming) part of the problem. If so, then please go ahead and report me to the appropriate security services; you know where I am, so that would not be difficult to deal with.

What you persist in failing to accept - and which the Pope clearly does not - is that these kinds of atrocity are carried out by people who don't give a **** for religion of any kind beyond a convenient excuse behind which to hide when committing such atrocities in the name of a religion; these people are criminals - like Breivik and other genocidal maniacs who may or may not choose to hide behind some religion or other in doing what they do.

Many of the mass killings in US are not carried out in the name of Islam or any other religion. Just get used to that; we're all trying to deal with criminal behaviour that kinows and respects no religious or other boundaries, the purported excuses for which are mere red herrings. Your next door neighbour who might not have anything whatsoever to do with Islam, genuine or corrupted, might at least in principle be as likely to go on a killing rampage as anyone else. Bear that in mind.

Before you do so, just consider the notion that all Muslims and all other immigrants be deported from UK (to where and on what grounds? - and which nations should be expected to accept them and why?) in order to "solve" that problem for this week and then think about how practical that would be...

No - we're up againt hardened, trained and radicalised hate criminals here and that training and radicalistion could happen anywhere, including remotely and then perhaps you'll ralise that the "Muslim" input of this is a drop in a very blood-red ocean that covers almost the entire globe and is expanding faster than the polar ice caps are melting due to climate change.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Blimey, he has gone off on one now.

[ahinton]

Blimey, he has gone off on one now.

Who's gone off on one what?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Before you do so, just consider the notion that all Muslims and all other immigrants be deported from UK (to where and on what grounds? - and which nations should be expected to accept them and why?) in order to "solve" that problem for this week and then think about how practical that would be...

Muslims should be deported to Muslim Countries where their beliefs and practices are more acceptable. Perhaps they should have a state like the Jews.

The fewer that are in Europe, the safer we will be.

People like you will would just sit back and do nothing and you increasingly sound like a sympathizer.

Thal

[ahinton]

Muslims should be deported to Muslim Countries where their beliefs and practices are more acceptable. Perhaps they should have a state like the Jews.

The fewer that are in Europe, the safer we will be.

People like you will would just sit back and do nothing and you increasingly sound like a sympathizer.

"Deportation" requires that deportees be relocated from their country of residence to their country of origin but, when you consider the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who were born in UK (some of whose parents and even grandparents were also born in UK), how far back would you go with this? Would you "deport" ALL Muslims from UK regardless of how long they've been living and working there? If so, how would you achieve this and how would you get which other countries to accept them?

Suggesting that they should have a state like Jews is surely playing right into the hands of ISIS whose very name puts forward its misplaced belief that it itself already a state (albeit one without defined terrority and borders like Israel). Why in any case would you expect Muslims all to live in a single country and, if so, which one? Probably only Saudi Arabia and Iran would be large enough to accommodate all the Muslims from North Africa, the Middle and Far East, Europe and US but size isn't all that matters; you'd be talking about relocating more than 1bn people to a single country and not one such country has the infrastructure to absorb them all.

You accuse me of "sitting back and doing nothing". I don't run a country. What might you expect me to do, how and with what authority? What are you doing? You don't run a country either!

As for sympathising, I have no sympathy whatsoever for hate crimes against the person or property, whoever commits them and in whatever name (if any) they're committed; what I do sympathise with, however (although I am not a Roman Catholic or indeed any kind of Christian), is Pope Francis' take on recent events, namely that the world is at war but religions are not its root cause. He's right. One has only to recognise that hate crimes can be committed by anyone anywhere in the name of a religion, a racial or ethnic group or indeed no name at all.

The only difference with Muslims (whom I do accept are responsible for more such crimes than are members of other religious groups) is that more of them (albeit still only a tiny minority anywhere) appear to be more susceptible to indoctrination and radicalisation than seems to be the case with Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and the Sikhs whom you mentioned upthread.

The sooner this is understood globally, the sooner a real and workable solution might stand a chance of being devised and implemented; violent crime is violent crime, whichever way you look at it.

What do you think are the aims of ISIS? To create an Islamic government operating Sharia law in every nation on earth? There's scant evidence of this (and it would in any case be an utter impossibillity) or indeed any other genuine motivation except to wreak havoc wherever they can.

Human rights as we understand them are a very low priority in Iran, for example but, whilst that is clearly a Muslim country, it deplores ISIS as much as do peace-loving and law abiding Muslims, including clerics, the world over. If that illustrates anything at all, it is that there is by no means a single "Islamic" standpoint common to and accepted by all Muslims (Sunni, Shi'a and ortherwise) and so, for that reason alone, the notion of relocating all the world's Muslims to a single nation would be not only absurd but also make matters very much worse than they are now.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

What do you think are the aims of ISIS? To create an Islamic government operating Sharia law in every notion on earth?

I don't know what every notion on Earth is, but to create a Caliphate where people with similar aims can live together makes perfect sense to me, as long as they do not force their practices and laws on non Muslim Countries.

You keep using "small minority" but it seems to be increasing at an alarming rate.

Thal

[ahinton]

I don't know what every notion on Earth is

Nor do I, although I seem fast to be getting close to the point at which I do know what every typo on earth is, having committed most of them at one time or another! Thanks for the tip-off; now corrected. The meaning was (fairly obviously, as I imagine it was) "every nation on earth".

but to create a Caliphate where people with similar aims can live together makes perfect sense to me, as long as they do not force their practices and laws on non Muslim Countries

It might indeed appear in principle to make perfect sense to some Europeans or Americans, the problem with it in practice being that, whilst ISIS might indeed want that (although it's far from certain "where" it would want it to be or where it might like the borders around such a new state to be, should one ever be formed), it is by no means desired by most Muslims, even in the Middle East.

You might be interested in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country which, whilst somewhat out of date and with a few anomalous and uncertain statistics, does at least give a relatively accurate idea of the distribution of the Muslim population throughout the world. At around 1.5bn in total, Muslims represent almost one quarter of the world's population and are the orld's second largest religious group. There's absolutely no way in which they could all be located in a single country, even if they all wanted to be!

Your principal concern was Europe, however and, according to this table, some 44m Europeans - 6% - are Muslim (although it's not clear which countries are classed as "European" in this calculation). UK figures are put at just over 3.1m, i.e. 4.8% of its population. EU countries with higher Muslim population percentages than UK are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Germany (possibly, depending on which statistical survey you rely on), Netherlands and Sweden, the highest percentage being in Bulgaria and the highest numbers in France. The highest Muslim concetrations elsewhere in Western Europe are outside EU, in Albania and some of the ex-Yugoslav countries.

The notion (and I do mean "notion" this time!) of Muslims "forcing their practices and laws on non Muslim Countries" is by definition limited to their ability to take over those countries' governments, since no non-Muslim country's government operates Sharia law; none has done this and none is likely to succeed in any future attempts to do so.

You keep using "small minority" but it seems to be increasing at an alarming rate.

I "keep using" it not because I am any less alarmed than you about what terrorists (of whom some but by no means all are Muslims) are doing in what does indeed appear to be an increasing rate but because the number of identifiably Muslim terrorists who have carried out such atrocities or are even suspected by Western security services of planning to do so is indeed very clearly a "small minority" of the world's 1.5bn or so Muslims.

That said, this thread seems now to have wandered far from "Brexit" onto Muslims and where they live, so perhaps it would be a good idea to get it back on track and on topic.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

At around 1.5bn in total, Muslims represent almost one quarter of the world's population and are the orld's second largest religious group. There's absolutely no way in which they could all be located in a single country, even if they all wanted to be!

Thanks, I did not know they were the orld's second largest religious group.

Of course, they cannot all be located in a single Country, but perhaps a caliphate for the most demented would be appropriate. Then they can live as they wish.

Thal

[ahinton]

Thanks, I did not know they were the orld's second largest religious group.

Of course, they cannot all be located in a single Country, but perhaps a caliphate for the most demented would be appropriate. Then they can live as they wish.

Well, that would depend upon who would decide on which were "the most demented" and where they would live under such a caliphate assuming that one could be established somewhere.

ISIS seems to want to establish such a caliphate but they have not the power to take over land in the Middle East where they could do this any more than they have the support of more than a tiny proportion of Muslims, even in the Middle East.

The fact remains, however, that Muslims live in almost all contries in the world of which some are exclusively or near-exclusively Muslim and others have Muslim populations of less than 1 per 1,000.

Trump, who is like Cameron in that he is wont to say the first thing that hasn't entered his head (although I'd push the comparison between them no farther than that!), has declared his wish to prevent all Muslims coming to US if he's elected (by which he presumably means to settle in US), yet even he has yet to clarify what if anything he'd wish to try to do about Muslims already living in US.

Now - BREXIT, anyone?!...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Trump, who is like Cameron in that he is wont to say the first thing that hasn't entered his head (although I'd push the comparison between them no farther than that!), has declared his wish to prevent all Muslims coming to US if he's elected (by which he presumably means to settle in US), yet even he has yet to clarify what if anything he'd wish to try to do about Muslims already living in US.

An excellent idea by Trump. Letting in more is simply putting his people in more danger. I wish we could do it here, then in a few years time, we could look at the ones that are already here and would wish to be somewhere else.

Thal

[ahinton]

An excellent idea by Trump. Letting in more is simply putting his people in more danger. I wish we could do it here, then in a few years time, we could look at the ones that are already here and would wish to be somewhere else.

On the contrary, it's a disastrous and ill-thought-out idea. Why? Because it's as daft, divisive and dangerous as would be declaring that he won't allow any more Jews, Greeks, Afro-Caribbeans, homosexuals or Sikhs into US (and he probably doesn't even appreciate the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh in any case).

The additional likelihood that such a ban, even were it enforceable (which of course it couldn't be), would encourage more illegal Muslim immigrants is hardly to be dismissed out of hand; if one considers US's immediate neighbours alone, whilst there are relatively few Muslims in Mexico there are well over 1m in Canada whose two borders with US are very long indeed.

As to Muslims that are already in UK, US or indeed anywhere else who might "wish to be somewhere else", no one is forcing any of them to remain where they are; if they'd rather be elsewhere, they can leave whenever they want.

Now - back to Brexit? Wouldn't it be better to have a separate Muslim thread and/or an immigration thread and leave this one for discussion of Brexit as was originally intended?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

So even Brexiteers share the uncertainties that they have helped to create:

https://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/08/01/brexit-and-the-challenges-of-reality/

And as for the Lords Temporal and the Lords Spiritual:

https://www.itv.com/news/2016-08-01/lords-could-delay-brexit-decision-says-tory-peer/

I'm not sure that the Financial Times or ITV News could fairly be regarded as "lefty" organisations...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Indeed, it appears that those unelected oxygen thieves want to delay Brexit and possibly overturn a referendum result. Scrap the House of Lords. It has long outgrown its usefulness.

We all have uncertainties, not just Brexiteers.

Thal

[ahinton]

Indeed, it appears that those unelected oxygen thieves want to delay Brexit and possibly overturn a referendum result. Scrap the House of Lords. It has long outgrown its usefulness.

Even were that to be done, most MPs favoured and doubltess still favour Remain and they are, of course, elected; you wouldn't want also to abolish the Commons, I presume?

We all have uncertainties, not just Brexiteers.

We do indeed, although we might all of us have somewhat less of them had the Brexiteers not created some of them by making no forward plans for a Brexit or considering the consequences of trying to proceed with one.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

you wouldn't want also to abolish the Commons, I presume?

If we don't extract ourselves from the Euro cretins it should be substantially reduced.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

We do indeed, although we might all of us have somewhat less of them had the Brexiteers not created some of them by making no forward plans for a Brexit or considering the consequences of trying to proceed with one.

What about your lovely "Remain" MP's?? They made no plans as they never thought they would lose.

Thal

[ahinton]

If we don't extract ourselves from the Euro cretins it should be substantially reduced.

What should? The House of Commons? Perhaps you mean something else, but if we have a compromised HoC we will no longer have the democratically elected MPs to which/whom we've been accustomed.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

What about your lovely "Remain" MP's?? They made no plans as they never thought they would lose.

They're not "my" MPs and whether or not any of them might be "lovely" is a matter of personal opinion, but it is a fact that far more of them supported Remain than is reflected in the constituency results; now if that tells you anything at all, it should be that any disloyalty that MPs might be thought to display should they vote differently to the majority of their constituents if and when it's put to Parliamentary vote would have been present at the outset, thereby revealing that constituents who vote for MPs and the MPs so elected were at loggerheads even before thr referendum was launched.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

What should? The House of Commons? Perhaps you mean something else, but if we have a compromised HoC we will no longer have the democratically elected MPs to which/whom we've been accustomed.

Best,

Alistair

Under EU "rule" they have become increasingly powerless, so i dont see why we need so many.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

They're not "my" MPs and whether or not any of them might be "lovely" is a matter of personal opinion, but it is a fact that far more of them supported Remain than is reflected in the constituency results; now if that tells you anything at all, it should be that any disloyalty that MPs might be thought to display should they vote differently to the majority of their constituents if and when it's put to Parliamentary vote would have been present at the outset, thereby revealing that constituents who vote for MPs and the MPs so elected were at loggerheads even before thr referendum was launched.

Best,

Alistair

Many MP's seem to no longer represent the views of their constituents. The fact that so many backed remain tells me that they were more interested in their own future, not that of the people.

Thal

[ahinton]

Many MP's seem to no longer represent the views of their constituents. The fact that so many backed remain tells me that they were more interested in their own future, not that of the people.

The referendum certainly exposed such differences but what do you mean by "their own future" - i.e. for what particular reasons would you say that a larger proportion of MPs favour/ed Remain than appears to have been the case for the electorate? In any event, how could an MP expect to represent the views of his constituents in the EU issue in cases where only the narrowest of margins either way pertained in his/her constituencies?

Not everyone in any constituency has the same views, interests, aims, aspirations, &c. in any case.

If Brexit suggests that the power of EU over UK would reduce, would you therefore maintain the current number of MPs should it proceed? If so, they might then vote to overturn it!

In the meantime, https://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/brexit-economic-slowdown-worse-than-feared/a938015?re=41498&ea=317026&utm_source=BulkEmail_NMA_Daily_Summary&utm_medium=BulkEmail_NMA_Daily_Summary&utm_campaign=BulkEmail_NMA_Daily_Summary

OK, the low interest rate has nothing to do with the referendum, of course, but whilst the second quarter UK economic figures look quite good, the third quarter ones look set to be quite a different story, in no wise helped by the raft of continuing uncertainties.

One thing about which I remain curious is this.

Assuming you to accept the referendum itself and its outcome as valid and viable means towards the passing of a law in UK, why do you see it as different to the means customarily used to pass other laws there, i.e. debate and voting in both houses of Parliament of which the members of one have been democratically elected by those who will be subject to and affected by such laws once passed?

In other words, what do you see as being so fundamentally different about the issue of UK's continued membership or otherwise of EU that it was deemed to merit quite different treatment to any other UK legislative issue?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

In other words, what do you see as being so fundamentally different about the issue of UK's continued membership or otherwise of EU that it was deemed to merit quite different treatment to any other UK legislative issue?

It is rather simple. Many people (including me) voted for the Tories because we wanted a chance to vote on EU membership. This was part of Tory manifesto and Cameron came good on his word.

Some things are of such importance that the electorate needs to be consulted and it is difficult to imagine a more important issue. The passing of laws is best left to Parliament. The future of the Country needs to be in the hands of the people.

Now bog off.

Thal

[ahinton]

It is rather simple. Many people (including me) voted for the Tories because we wanted a chance to vote on EU membership. This was part of Tory manifesto and Cameron came good on his word.

OK, I undersatand and accept that, of course, but what would you have done had the Tories not included a promise of this referendum in its manifesto? - or reneged on that promise once in office? (which is hardly unheard of, after all!). After all, no other party did so. And what would you have done had the Tories failed to win that election, in which case their referendum promise would have been kicked into the long grass in any event?

Some things are of such importance that the electorate needs to be consulted and it is difficult to imagine a more important issue.

I agree entirely that this is one of the most important issues to have faced UK since it joined what was then the Common Market in 1972 and then decided three years later to stay there. However, are you really convinced that no other fundamentally important laws have been passed or repealed since the formation of Council of Europe in the late 1940s that was to lead to the foundation of the forerunner of EU in the 1950s? What about NHS legislation? The abolition of the death penalty? Homosexual rights? The Human Rights Act? Aren't these also all of immense importance to UK society?

Moreover - and perhaps even more importantly - do you really believe that Parliament and Parliamentary procedure are inherently incapable of addressing the issues of the greatest importance for the country? If so, your faith in both makes it hard to understand why you voted for any political party at all!

The passing of laws is best left to Parliament. The future of the Country needs to be in the hands of the people.

But it is not possible to distinguish between the two, of which the first of your two statements here is correct and the second is also correct when - and to the extent that -  MPs elected and paid for by "the people" debate and vote on many and varied aspects of the nation's future before passing or repealing laws.

When people vote in General Elections they express trust in the candidates for whom they vote and whom they hope will gain seats in Parliament; that usually includes (although is not limited to) faith in the candidate's knowledge, expertise and professionalism and an expectation that these will likely often exceed those of the electorate that puts them in office.

UK could not have joined EEC (as then it was) or express its desire to remain a member of it without legislation on it being passed in Parliament. It could not form an NHS, abolish the death penalty, address homosexual rights or establish human rights in general without passing or repealing laws in Parliament. Likewise, Brexit cannot be implemented without Parliament repealing law and passing new law.

All laws passed and repealed by Parliament impact upon what you call "the future of the country"; that's why they're passed and repealed!

As you rightly observe, "the passing of laws is best left to Parliament"; the EU in/out issue is no different, nor indeed should it be so.

Best,

Alistair