Labour Party/government Watch

[kenneal - lagger]

Also, it worth remembering the British army was, and still is, occupying Irish land, not the other way around,

That depends on whether or not you think who the land belongs to has anything to do with the majority of the people who have lived there for a few hundred years or more. Similarly with the Falklands.

[3rdRock]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 43302.html

Corbyn on Corbyn:

Here are the four most common misconceptions about me and my campaign – and the truth

I hate the rich and am unelectable? I've heard a lot of things about myself since running for the Labour leadership, and I'd like to set them straight.

[3rdRock]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 44372.html

Jeremy Corbyn insists many rich people would be willing to pay more tax

“Many well-off people I speak to, in Islington and around the country, would be quite happy to pay more tax to fund better public services or to pay down our debts."

“Opinion polls bear this out, better-off people are no less likely to support higher taxes: a more equal society is better for us all. We all do better ... when we all care for each other.”

I think you're fooling yourself there JC, regardless of what the opinion polls may say.

[kenneal - lagger]

But the ones who don't want to pay any taxes, not just more taxes, are the one's who make the effort to influence/purchase those in power, as he will find out if/when he gets into power.

[Little John]

Also, it worth remembering the British army was, and still is, occupying Irish land, not the other way around,

That depends on whether or not you think who the land belongs to has anything to do with the majority of the people who have lived there for a few hundred years or more. Similarly with the Falklands.

Yes, I agree it does. However, it is not difficult to see how many Northern Irish Catholic people (who have lived there a lot longer than any British soldier or even their Protestant neighbours) are likely to think it belongs to the Irish and not the English.

[UndercoverElephant]

Also, it worth remembering the British army was, and still is, occupying Irish land, not the other way around,

That depends on whether or not you think who the land belongs to has anything to do with the majority of the people who have lived there for a few hundred years or more. Similarly with the Falklands.

Yes, I agree it does. However, it is not difficult to see how many Northern Irish Catholic people (who have lived there a lot longer than any British soldier or even their Protestant neighbours) are likely to think it belongs to the Irish and not the English.

The fate of Northern Ireland no longer has anything to do with what the English want. It doesn't "belong to the English". The last English Prime Minister of the UK who thought like that was Thatcher.

NI is a burden on the rest of the UK. It is no use to us strategically, economically or militarily. Most English people could surely not care less if it were to be re-united with the Republic.

Northern Ireland "belongs" to the people of Northern Ireland, both morally and, in effect, legally. By which I mean that an agreement is already in place such that if a majority of the people of NI vote to join the Republic, the UK would not stop them.

[johnhemming2]

However, it is not difficult to see how many Northern Irish Catholic people (who have lived there a lot longer than any British soldier or even their Protestant neighbours) are likely to think it belongs to the Irish and not the English.

I would think that the older people in Northern Ireland are a mixture of Protestant, Catholic and Neither. There probably are some over 100, but not beyond 110. Who the oldest is, I don't know.

I don't think, however, that ownership of an area should vest in the oldest person living there.

The idea of the United nations was to move towards resolving land and other disputes through discussion and the use of law rather than force. Inherently it accepts throughout much of the world that the status quo at the creation is correct notwithstanding questions as to whose ancestors lived there 500 years ago.

[biffvernon]

Time to realise that the concept of the nation state is a bit silly. Subsidiarity should rule.

[Little John]

However, it is not difficult to see how many Northern Irish Catholic people (who have lived there a lot longer than any British soldier or even their Protestant neighbours) are likely to think it belongs to the Irish and not the English.

I would think that the older people in Northern Ireland are a mixture of Protestant, Catholic and Neither. There probably are some over 100, but not beyond 110. Who the oldest is, I don't know.

I don't think, however, that ownership of an area should vest in the oldest person living there.

The idea of the United nations was to move towards resolving land and other disputes through discussion and the use of law rather than force. Inherently it accepts throughout much of the world that the status quo at the creation is correct notwithstanding questions as to whose ancestors lived there 500 years ago.

So, if I come and successfully take your house from you at gunpoint, then irrespective of the fact you may have lived there for many years previously is neither here nor there. The facts on the ground would be that I now occupied your house. Yes?

Next you'll be telling us that the Israelis have the right to occupy Palestinian lands.

You essential position rests on the premise that right of occupancy is determined by the bald fact of occupancy and any other considerations are secondary at best. Funny how that argument is almost always one advanced by occupiers or their allies.

[johnhemming2]

Next you'll be telling us that the Israelis have the right to occupy Palestinian lands.

This is why people discuss issues such as the boundaries and the settlements. Obviously according to the UN the settlements are unlawful. There are a range of arguments as to whether Israel should exist as a separate state, but the "two state solution", which I support, assumes there is a separate state of Israel.

However, the current established international law does not as a rule go back centuries to argue about what happened generations ago. The constitutional control of the UK mainland is substantially settled. Places like Alsace Lorraine and quite a bit of the continent have difficulties, but Poland is now an established country and no-one is arguing for changes to that.

[biffvernon]

Obviously according to the UN the settlements are unlawful.

So why has the UK Government done so little to see the implementation of UN Resolution 242?

[kenneal - lagger]

...
The idea of the United nations was to move towards resolving land and other disputes through discussion and the use of law rather than force. Inherently it accepts throughout much of the world that the status quo at the creation is correct notwithstanding questions as to whose ancestors lived there 500 years ago.

I took this to mean that the status quo at the time of implementation of current law was what was accepted. So the Israeli occupation of the West Bank would be illegal while the current situation in the Falklands, NI, Gibraltar and the Spanish enclaves in North Africa would be legal.

[johnhemming2]

I took this to mean that the status quo at the time of implementation of current law was what was accepted. So the Israeli occupation of the West Bank would be illegal while the current situation in the Falklands, NI, Gibraltar and the Spanish enclaves in North Africa would be legal.

I think that is essentially right. Some issues also remain unsettled (eg Kashmir).

[Little John]

That depends on whether or not you think who the land belongs to has anything to do with the majority of the people who have lived there for a few hundred years or more. Similarly with the Falklands.

Yes, I agree it does. However, it is not difficult to see how many Northern Irish Catholic people (who have lived there a lot longer than any British soldier or even their Protestant neighbours) are likely to think it belongs to the Irish and not the English.

The fate of Northern Ireland no longer has anything to do with what the English want. It doesn't "belong to the English". The last English Prime Minister of the UK who thought like that was Thatcher.

NI is a burden on the rest of the UK. It is no use to us strategically, economically or militarily. Most English people could surely not care less if it were to be re-united with the Republic.

Northern Ireland "belongs" to the people of Northern Ireland, both morally and, in effect, legally. By which I mean that an agreement is already in place such that if a majority of the people of NI vote to join the Republic, the UK would not stop them.

I agree with all of this, by the way. Which is largely why the troubles went away. Though, not entirely due to the internal demographic tensions between protestants and Catholics.

[3rdRock]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... e-politics

Jeremy Corbyn: ‘We are not doing celebrity, personality or abusive politics – this is about hope’

The Labour leadership candidate is riding a popular surge from the left that he compares to the rise of Greece’s Syriza and Spain’s Podemos. But if he wins, can he hold his party together?

JC is starting to grow on me and I'm beginning to think that he's in with a real chance of winning the leadership battle. Having said that, anything has to be better than the other three Blairite stooges currently up for election.