The government has been taken to court and told to have a plan in place, which they have done (their plan is to leave it all to local government and ban petrol/diesel cars from 2040). It wasn't the EU who took the government to court, but British citizens. The EU gave them the vehicle to do this, which will now be taken away.
Anne Marie Waters: Anti-Islam candidate to stand for UKIP leadership please log in to view this image Image copyright Shutterstock Image caption The former Labour party member says Sharia courts "treat women like absolute dirt" An anti-Islam candidate has been allowed to stand for the UKIP leadership. Anne Marie Waters, a former Labour activist and founder of the Sharia Watch pressure group, has previously called Islam "evil". Her leadership bid has split the party, with some MEPs threatening to quit if she was allowed into the race. But the UKIP National Executive Committee, which vets all would-be candidates, has allowed her to stand. The other candidates to replace Paul Nuttall - who stood down after UKIP's poor performance in June's general election - are: Henry Bolton David Coburn Jane Collins David Kurten Marion Mason Aidan Powlesland John Rees-Evans Ben Walker Anne Marie Waters Peter Whittle David Allen Voting papers will be sent to party members over the next few weeks and the new leader will be announced at the party's annual conference in Torquay on the 29th and 30th of September. Ms Waters's leadership bid was backed by former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson and she has previously been blocked from standing as a UKIP election candidate. James Carver, UKIP West Midlands MEP, said he "sincerely hoped" Ms Waters did not win - but added that she should be allowed to stand. He said: "Her train of thought, I think is going about it the wrong way... there are many British Muslims in this country and that is a good thing." The party's former leader, Paul Nuttall, has previously said her views made him "uncomfortable". Ms Waters believes her anti-Islam message, including a proposed ban on the burka, the closure of all sharia councils and a temporary freeze on all immigration, will strike a chord with many voters. She has argued that UKIP could regain support if it had the "guts" to be "honest about Islam" and challenge the view that it has "nothing to do" with jihadist violence. He told BBC News last month: "If UKIP goes down the route of being a party that is anti the religion of Islam, then frankly it's finished." thats a lot of candidates has any ukip member not put their name in
I rather liked this Facebook post that I saw earlier............ About 12.50 on LBC today. Caller from Basildon. She sounds late 60's / early 70's. Can't remember her name so I'll just call her Mildred:- "I'm sick to death of these snowflakes. Let's put the Great back into Great Britain (*1). We won two world wars (*2) and now we're being ruled by Germany (*3)". First reaction was to do the usual thing and shout at the radio but after a few seconds something happened that I haven't experienced before. I started laughing. Laughing because i...t dawned on me that this old biddy, along with many other people in this age-group (I'm 63) are just thick as pig-**** and there's really no point in shouting or arguing. Better to just enjoy and take heart that when this one reaches the end of life's conveyor-belt, an eighteen year old replacement will be adjusting seat-belts at the other end - and the overwhelming odds are that it will be an enlightened eighteen year old. It's the baby-boomers who go on about how we won two world wars but this is the very first age-group who can have no first-hand knowledge of the horrors of war. My nan did. She lost two brothers in WW1 and the other one in WW2. If she was still alive she'd have a few words for Mildred. (*1) The 'Great' in Great Britain is the same as the 'Great' in Greater London, Greater Manchester, Great Missenden and Great Yarmouth. It's geography - not supremacy. (*2) We didn't WIN two world wars - we were on the winning side. We were on the same side as Hindus, Ghurkas, Sikhs, Muslims, Bhuddists, Indians, West Indians, Burmese, South Africans, French, Yanks, Canadians, Poles, Czechs, Greeks, Russians, New Zealanders, Norwegians, Yugoslavs, Jews, Aussies, Maltese, Brazilians, Chinese, Red Indians and Eskimos - all fighting against fascism. It's not quite the same as "We won two world wars". (*3) Ruled by Germany..? The UK has more input into the EU than Germany, we pay less per person into the EU than Germany, we're not in the Schengen zone like Germany and we don't use the Euro like Germany. We're actually ruled by the UK's political elite and the 'First Past the Post' electoral system - along with the unelected House of Lords. WW2 was a long time ago Mildred. We're all friends now. These are the twits that Rupert effing Murdoch has mobilised but give it 10 years and most will be compost - including the ring-master I share the poster's optimism for the future. Younger people are, by and large, less xenophobic, less homophobic, and just generally more tolerant than their parents and grandparents. They didn't vote to leave the EU and they didn't vote Tory. They are entitled to be angry at the hand my generation has dealt them and they will want change. More power to them.
In a very similar vein, I'm following current events in the US with increasing dismay. The protests / counter protests in Charlottesville over the weekend showed just how much white supremacist fascism feels enabled by the actions of the present government over there. The death of a young woman, Heather Heyer, and the injuries suffered by many others is horrific, but I fear that the underlying cause that created these events runs far deeper. 'The American Way' is often touted as their utopia. It's all about people being free - free to do, say, live, behave, worship however they want, with little or no interference or control from the state. In principle, that's a good idea. Sadly, it relies on a principled population to work. Let's take the First Amendment - the freedom of speech. Basically, you can say what you like. Even if that's not what other people like. and they can say so, and you can argue, and you can confront each other's views, and then suddenly there's a car being driven into a crowd of people simply because they think differently to you. And people die. That's not an issue that specifically surrounds white supremacism, although pretty much all of the recent events have been due to their actions. And the alt-right need to take responsibility, as do all groups, for the impact their views have on society as a whole. Let's take the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms. Written in the late eighteenth century at a time when there was a clear danger from Native American Indians, rogue English-supporting vigilantes, and claim-jumpers looking to secure the best land for themselves, it made sense that a homestead could be protected. But it's not been updated for over two hundred years, and you now have people with an armies' worth of assault weaponry, quoting ancient legislation as their 'right'. The rights of these gun-toting mavericks legally outweighs the rights of the rest of society to be protected from their potentially murderous intentions, or any accidents caused by a trigger-happy redneck out shopping (such a dangerous pastime in some states, clearly). Most other 'civilised' countries understand the need to draw a line between the rights of the individual and the rights of society. They know that free speech is important, but hate speech is illegal. They know that having an armed population will only lead to people being shot. America needs to wake up to the fact that 'The American Dream' is in severe danger of being left for dead on the sidewalk, and that only by bringing the edge-case lunatics (white fascists, survivalist weapons hoarders, etc.) into line by protecting the many against the few, will the US start to regain it's freedom. Because - after all - the anthem doesn't just talk about it being 'the land of the free', it also declares itself 'the home of the brave', and it's time that the brave stood up - like Heather Heyer did - and start to make a difference.
Parts of America ie mid north will always be armed because their heritage is hunting, mostly deer. Easier to take the spots of a leopard than change that. I also think we are naive if we believe that living in e.g. Texas and the risks associated, is like living in Surrey or Berkshire. There are some serious criminals that come over the border. The UK's neighbour is a benign France, the US has Mexico and Interamericas, some of the most dangerous countries in the world. If I was living in one of those South-West states, I'd keep a handgun However, I have never been able to see the justification for owning a machine gun or an AK 47 over there. An owner will say he's protecting himself against Government. Clearly they have less trust in their politicians even than we do.
In addition to my comment above, the message from the White House is scarily similar. If you don't agree with someone, try and shout them down or discredit them (the media, the Democrats, other nations, environmentalists, etc.). Never take any responsibility for anything bad, but claim credit for everything good - no matter who actually did it. Pick on people that you can bully (Mexico over the wall, Islamic countries over the perception of terrorism, North Korea over whatever was on Fox News that morning) We have a US Government that believes it is infallible, and which believes it can do whatever it likes without any consequences to their behaviour. So they strut around, declaring how terrible everything is, how brilliant they are, and how everyone who criticises them - whether justified or not - is lying. Reminds me of the movie Wag The Dog. But not in a good way...
There are far less serious criminals coming over the border from Mexico than there are serious white American criminals. The rhetoric of the latino drug-lord rapist is simply that - rhetoric. There's no evidence that such crimes occur at any significant level.
Was only joking, but it's probably the case that some stereotypes on this sort of thing come from TV.
I heard this lady speaking on LBC. There are always some of the Little Britain brigade about, just as there are some No-Border anarchists. Young people now are certainly less homophobic than when I was young. Though I think we have to thank the generation before mine for decriminalisation. And artists like Elton John and David Bowie for making gay acceptable. I fear some of this transgender stuff may be going too far when I read about feminist mothers who dress their 4 year old son up like a girl whether their son approves or not. What psychological scars might result? I don't think the British are xenophobic on the whole, and the argument by Remain that hate of foreigners and racism fuelled the Brexit vote is simply to misunderstand or misrepresent most Brexit voters motives. I base this in polls taken pre and post June 2016 on what mattered to people, and control of borders and alleviation of local public service pressures were right up there. It would be unwise indeed for Labour to assume that all the young people that voted for Corbyn will be anti-Tory. Socialism is anathema to me, but if when I was a penniless student, and had I been facing £50,000 debt, Joseph Stalin had offered to pay back my loan, I'd have voted for him - and yes, even Corbyn. Corbyn cannot buy votes forever. As to youngsters and the EU, going forward, I'm quite certain that if the next generation wants to rejoin and be deep pocket again to the EU (they would almost certainly have to join the Euro), then it would be possible. In other words, they will have the same choice as say the youth of Switzerland or Norway to join the EU. I don't see Swiss or Norwegian kids complaining that they are missing out.
Well, the First Amendment does not grant everyone liberty to say anything they want in the USA. There are multiple examples of convictions for inciting violence, supporting terrorism, defamation, issuing 'true threats' etc. The first amendment supports the principle of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble peaceably and freedom to petition the government. All hallmarks of a civilised society in my view, and all open to interpretation by the law. Removal or restriction of any of them only plays into the hands of totalitarians like the neo Nazis. Of course, there are many countries where criticism of the constitution is illegal. Are you using your right to free speech to urge that citizens of another country are denied it? The Second Amendment is sadly not so beautifully or clearly worded as the First, is obviously of its time, and has led to considerable confusion. Unfortunately horrible interest groups and politicians in their pockets keep this grotesque, archaic crock of **** going. But, even more sadly, even if the US had stronger firearms laws it would not have stopped Heather Heyer being run down by a Nazi in a car.
Out of interest, are you basing that on statistics or a finger waving in the air? Crime by white Americans is for a large part financial, fraud, embezzlement etc
https://openborders.info/hispanic-crime-and-illegal-immigration-in-the-united-states/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-illegal-immigrants-crime.html http://time.com/4509413/presidential-debate-donald-trump-immigration/
Listened to the Today program when some Tory brexiteer got himself worked up about the EU. It started off as a sane point of view but then degenerated as soon as he was asked some questions to justify the scene he was painting. It went something like this. It is in both sides interest to strike a trade deal. Question: Why should the EU give us what you want Answer: I said already because it's in both sides interests to do so Little pause for breath: If the EU wants to threaten and bully us and impose obstacles we should tell them to f...off (my paraphrase) Question: When did they do that? Answer: The EU is a dysfunctional organisation. THEY ARE THREATENING AND BULLYING US. I hope our leaders stand up for us. They are preventing us from negotiating trade deals now by threats All of this rant was in the context of being challenged on the point that under the agenda which has been agreed, we get to talk about trading relationship at the end of the process. As I said that was agreed at the outset Apparently, the EU politicians are so spiteful and vengeful that they would damage their own self-interests by punishing the UK. I have a question. As it is so plainly obvious that a negotiated settlement will suit everybody best why do our politicians constantly claim that their opponents in Europe cannot see that? It just does not stack up. If someone can point me towards some evidence of the EU's dastardly dealings and position, I'd like to see it Now forgive me if this sounds a tad cynical. Has the Brexit vote not already been held? Has Article 50 not already been triggered? Did the Tories not get exactly the mandate they wanted? OK the last one is a bit tongue in cheek. Talking any old cobblers in order to persuade a gullible electorate during hustings is to be expected. But while the process of leaving is being actioned over the next 18 months just who did he feel he need to be convinced by as big a set of lies and paranoid ramblings as I've heard in a long time. Perhaps himself? Negotiation needs a calm head and focus on the priorities. From what I have seen the EU team are quietly getting on with it. Our politicians seem intent on stoking up ill will, winding themselves up and public infighting. One would have thought it would be harder to find consensus when there are 26 voices all clamouring to protect their own self - interests. Yet it seems to be the other way around.
This quoted from your first article cited: "Overall, the data from Table 1 do show that Hispanics have higher crime rates than non-Hispanic whites and (most) Asian ethnicities. Thus, immigration restrictionists who are focused on this second-generation/third-generation crime effect may have some valid grounds for worry there, though, as pointed out above, comparison with all Americans, including blacks, paints a different picture..." Mexico is the 22nd most dangerous country in the world, and this includes all the countries like Syria where there is a war on. There have been some horrific serial killers coming across the border into the US. In the US, a man is about nine times more likely to be murdered if he is black, and three times is a woman. These killings are almost all by black offenders. The following article is interesting as it shows that many more black people kill whites, than whites kill black, despite all the "Black Lives Matter" stuff (see the first table): https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers
Here's an observation. The EU problems are to come. At present, all the 27 have done is give a mandate to the negotiators. But most of those countries each want something different out of Brexit. Poland and the East Europeans in the south are fixated on money and want to hold out for the max, since they are net recipients. Ireland wants soft borders and continued, easy trade. The German car industry is in a weakened state and cannot afford trade tariffs on a vital export market. Italy is pressing for a smooth transition. Northern Eastern states feel it vital to preserve UK military services as a bulwark against Russia. Junckers and the Commission seem to be in punitive mode. At some stage, they are all going to have to sit down and agree something. Then the fur will fly in the European Parliament...
