Personally I find Obama's interference to be little more than American arrogance. He's not exactly in a strong position to argue the case for UK to remain in the EU when his own country have no relevant experience of such a situation. Perhaps after he has negotiated with the likes of Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia to form a similar 'superstate' and have them share borders, share finances, share laws etc, he can then come back and validly share thoughts, experiences and opinions. As far as I'm concerned, his sole reason for interfering is to make a stronger case for TTIP, a trade 'deal' that will do little more than benefit his own country.
Isn't the USA just one large "superstate" already? The figures I have seen suggested that the EU would gain more from a TTIP deal than the USA by about 10%. Also it seems doubtful that it will be agreed before he leaves office, showing that trade deals take time. I would still rather see him saying what he thinks, with whatever motives, than Le Pen who really does have her own agenda.
Obama and Le Pen have identical motives, they both want what they consider is best for their own countries. Other countries come way down their list of priorities.
I wouldn't say that it is a superstate already, but appears to want to head that way, albeit it wants control rather than just membership. In February the TPP version of TTIP was signed, tying in eleven other Pacific-rim countries against the wishes of many of the citizens of those countries. The objections raised there are similar to the objections raised here and in Europe - 1)the secrecy of negotiations (negotiations about which even our own MPs are kept in the dark), 2)the fears over ISDS - the one-way street of compensation claims which favour no-one but American Corporations, 3)the impact it will have on the cost of medicine and health treatment, and 4)the likelihood of a widening of the 'income gap' as it appears to favour none bar the already wealthy. The suggestion that the EU will benefit more than the USA by 10% may be correct, but I'd contend that that is in 'pure trade terms' which would benefit corporations but not people - items 3 & 4 are the ones that will adversely affect the people but not the corporations, yet they get no say in the matter. Both TPP and TTIP are Obama's baby, presumably his 'legacy' to the country he has served. He'll do anything he can to get this signed before Trump is revealed as his successor, something that may well dissuade some from signing.
Obama is just supporting his mate Cameron and treading a line that is nice and easy for an outgoing American President to take - it's the political classes sticking together. I have worked for large American Corps for over 35 years and spent a lot of time there and have many friends there, but they are incredibly insular and the vast majority have no clue as to what happens in the world outside the US - most do not even have a passport!
http://www.90min.com/posts/3220145-...ching-sex-offender-rule-in-prison?a_aid=35507 Thoughts on this anyone? Adam Johnson banned from speaking to his daughter - for speaking to his daughter. Is that warranted or draconian & a step too far?
There is a one rule fits all approach taking place here.... In my view it is draconian. As he was convicted of sex with a teenager..... not a child.... and not incest. The media and the public sentiment pigeon hole all into one category. Johnson is a hebephile or a ephebophile but not not a *****phile..... and the vast majority of the population will not even have heard of the former. I have only ever heard one police officer clarify the difference. In the long run this is not helping his rehab or his child etc etc. (I know that some on these boards will want to throw away the key on people like him). I guess he broke the prison rules though and he has to pay a price Ephebophilia A sexual attraction to a teenaged girl or boy who is not at the legal age of consent. Differs from ****philia in that said girl or boy has already reached and/or gone through puberty.
So he's a sort of Humbert Humbert then. My gut reaction upon reading this was to think 'That's not right, it's over the top & not applicable to the crime he was found guilty of' - and I still think that. There's no denying that he committed a crime and deserves the punishment and opportunity to rehabilitate - but as you point out, this will be a backward step for both him and his daughter. It leads me to wonder if there is a right to appeal this, and what his lawyer would make of it all.
