What Would Happen To The EU

Post by Omega
What would happen to the EU if every sovereign state member [so far]
held a leave/stay referendum offering as we have done in Britain, to
honour the outcome?
Would the EU simply be, no more, overnight?
Far too complex a situation for me to grasp but there are one or two
more politically minded people here I would be interested to hear.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/

remember most countries are net recipients
and i don't trust pew's objectivity...

--
www.abelard.org

Omega

2017-11-27 15:07:06 UTC

Post by abelard

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/
remember most countries are net recipients
and i don't trust pew's objectivity...

Never heard of Pew Research but I was aware many of the smaller nations
are dependent on the EU for handouts.

It worries me, Superstate making handouts to lesser countries,
dis-incentivises them to make advances in their own right.

Sooner than later these 'dependent' countries could also become
politically castrated, "do this" or we will bring your entire economy to
a grinding halt by halting these payments?

While polls and political researchers felt sure we Brits embraced Europe
just a short time ago, the Referendum sorted out that myth once and for
all!

I truly believe, that had Britain NOT been bombarded with so much false
news and reports by 'the establishment' and outlandish threats to our
well being if we were to leave, then the leave vote may have been higher
my many millions. And still the Remainers, I see, are intent to
continue destroying the Democratic Process with more threat. What the
fuck is wrong with these losers!

We are leaving but instinctively I feel, a few more countries will follow.

omega

abelard

2017-11-27 16:53:49 UTC

Post by Omega

Post by abelard

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/
remember most countries are net recipients
and i don't trust pew's objectivity...

Never heard of Pew Research but I was aware many of the smaller nations
are dependent on the EU for handouts.
It worries me, Superstate making handouts to lesser countries,
dis-incentivises them to make advances in their own right.
Sooner than later these 'dependent' countries could also become
politically castrated, "do this" or we will bring your entire economy to
a grinding halt by halting these payments?
While polls and political researchers felt sure we Brits embraced Europe
just a short time ago, the Referendum sorted out that myth once and for
all!
I truly believe, that had Britain NOT been bombarded with so much false
news and reports by 'the establishment' and outlandish threats to our
well being if we were to leave, then the leave vote may have been higher
my many millions. And still the Remainers, I see, are intent to
continue destroying the Democratic Process with more threat. What the
fuck is wrong with these losers!
We are leaving but instinctively I feel, a few more countries will follow.

all true...

and now there will be greater pressures on the dole money

--
www.abelard.org

borkbork

2017-11-27 17:11:08 UTC

robert peston last week (below)

this is a mature idea

but people like abelard, the uk government, they have the attitude of the
man in the pub (the tories being ukip), that citizens are irresponsible

that people will sit on their arses smoking and watching TV with a UBI
that is the problem with the tories, 100% .. they have no regard for
anyone or anything, their class

they have everyone outside their party as "idlers", "shirkers" "feckless"

they are the lowest denominator

they have no respect for anyone or anything.

"The introduction of a universal basic income is, he believes,
inevitable. This drastic reinvention of the welfare state would see the
government pay every single citizen, irrespective of their wealth or
employment status, a regular cash sum calculated to cover all their basic
needs. The only country in the world to experiment with the policy so far
is Finland, but Peston sounds almost nonchalantly matter of fact when he
predicts, as if stating the obvious: “We will end up with it. We just
have to reconcile ourselves to no growth. The natural tendency of the
economy at the moment is to widen income and wealth disparities and in
those circumstances, and particularly when you layer on top of that the
rise of robots and artificial intelligence, it is very, very difficult to
think of any alternative but guaranteeing some kind of universal basic
income.” Does he assume this will become Labour party policy in the
foreseeable future? “Yeah.”"

abelard

2017-11-27 17:31:04 UTC

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:11:08 -0000 (UTC), borkbork

i do indeed...however, i also believe the only way they'll
learn is by making errors and getting in the cack...

of course this could be *improved* through better education

Post by borkbork
that people will sit on their arses smoking and watching TV with a UBI
that is the problem with the tories, 100% .. they have no regard for
anyone or anything, their class

whereas you want others like me to pay for you as you sit 'watching tv
with a ubi'

Post by borkbork
they have everyone outside their party as "idlers", "shirkers" "feckless"

not at all...most of you(those who vote for conmen like corvyd
are merely thick/uneducated/lazy in varying degrees
but much of that is hardly your fault when idiots like the cult
appeal to your envy and ignorance

Post by borkbork
they are the lowest denominator
they have no respect for anyone or anything.

now you are lying...but i s'pose you're too dim to realise that

Post by borkbork
"The introduction of a universal basic income is, he believes,
inevitable. This drastic reinvention of the welfare state would see the
government pay every single citizen, irrespective of their wealth or
employment status, a regular cash sum calculated to cover all their basic
needs. The only country in the world to experiment with the policy so far
is Finland,

no it isn't

Post by borkbork
but Peston sounds almost nonchalantly matter of fact when he
predicts, as if stating the obvious: We will end up with it. We just
have to reconcile ourselves to no growth.

define 'growth'

Post by borkbork
The natural tendency of the
economy at the moment is to widen income and wealth disparities

making mooney is simple...but so is playing monopoly

Post by borkbork
and in
those circumstances, and particularly when you layer on top of that the
rise of robots and artificial intelligence, it is very, very difficult to
think of any alternative but guaranteeing some kind of universal basic
income. Does he assume this will become Labour party policy in the
foreseeable future? Yeah."

the process is already underway and i'm in favour

i suggest you post for yourself instead of trying to post for me

--
www.abelard.org

harry

2017-11-28 08:44:40 UTC

Post by borkbork
robert peston last week (below)
this is a mature idea
but people like abelard, the uk government, they have the attitude of the
man in the pub (the tories being ukip), that citizens are irresponsible
that people will sit on their arses smoking and watching TV with a UBI
that is the problem with the tories, 100% .. they have no regard for
anyone or anything, their class
they have everyone outside their party as "idlers", "shirkers" "feckless"
they are the lowest denominator
they have no respect for anyone or anything.
"The introduction of a universal basic income is, he believes,
inevitable. This drastic reinvention of the welfare state would see the
government pay every single citizen, irrespective of their wealth or
employment status, a regular cash sum calculated to cover all their basic
needs. The only country in the world to experiment with the policy so far
is Finland, but Peston sounds almost nonchalantly matter of fact when he
predicts, as if stating the obvious: “We will end up with it. We just
have to reconcile ourselves to no growth. The natural tendency of the
economy at the moment is to widen income and wealth disparities and in
those circumstances, and particularly when you layer on top of that the
rise of robots and artificial intelligence, it is very, very difficult to
think of any alternative but guaranteeing some kind of universal basic
income.” Does he assume this will become Labour party policy in the
foreseeable future? “Yeah.”"

It's drivel.
Where's all this money coming from?

Byker

2017-11-27 23:14:34 UTC

Post by Omega
Never heard of Pew Research

http://www.pewresearch.org

Their polls can be quite revealing.

A majority of Muslims in several countries support the death penalty for
Muslims who convert away from Islam, including in Afghanistan (79 percent),
Egypt (88 percent), Pakistan (75 percent), the Palestinian territories (62
percent), Jordan (83 percent) and Malaysia (58 percent).

Forty percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories and 39 percent of
Muslims in Afghanistan said attacking civilian targets to defend Islam is
often or sometimes justified. Further, 18 percent of Muslims in Afghanistan
and the Palestinian territories said such actions are “often” justified.

Muslims in many countries don’t have a problem with honor killings. While
majorities of Muslims — though rarely large majorities — surveyed in Central
Asia, Southeast Asia and Southern-Eastern Europe reject honor killings in
all circumstances, Muslims in South Asia and the Middle East-North Africa
seem to have less of a problem with the heinous practice.

One of the questions, which Pew asked of Muslims in 38 countries from
Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, was whether or not they support
making sharia the official law in the country. In many countries, the answer
was overwhelmingly yes.

Check out these statistics: https://tinyurl.com/km7v7f4

1 out of 3 British Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslim apostates
should be executed.

Muslim First, British Second: https://tinyurl.com/mszupnd

47% of respondents said they considered themselves Muslims first and
Americans second: http://tinyurl.com/4hycq4

"Muslim first, Canadian by Accident": https://tinyurl.com/l58jz9f

Also:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/shock-poll-51-of-muslims-want-sharia-law-25-okay-with-violence-against-infidels/

Not that shocking, actually.

Omega

2017-11-28 08:53:20 UTC

Post by Omega
Never heard of Pew Research

http://www.pewresearch.org
Their polls can be quite revealing.
A majority of Muslims in several countries support the death penalty for
Muslims who convert away from Islam, including in Afghanistan (79 percent),
Egypt (88 percent), Pakistan (75 percent), the Palestinian territories (62
percent), Jordan (83 percent) and Malaysia (58 percent).
Forty percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories and 39 percent of
Muslims in Afghanistan said attacking civilian targets to defend Islam is
often or sometimes justified. Further, 18 percent of Muslims in Afghanistan
and the Palestinian territories said such actions are “often” justified.
Muslims in many countries don’t have a problem with honor killings. While
majorities of Muslims — though rarely large majorities — surveyed in Central
Asia, Southeast Asia and Southern-Eastern Europe reject honor killings in
all circumstances, Muslims in South Asia and the Middle East-North Africa
seem to have less of a problem with the heinous practice.
One of the questions, which Pew asked of Muslims in 38 countries from
Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, was whether or not they support
making sharia the official law in the country. In many countries, the answer
was overwhelmingly yes.
Check out these statistics: https://tinyurl.com/km7v7f4
1 out of 3 British Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslim apostates
should be executed.
Muslim First, British Second: https://tinyurl.com/mszupnd
47% of respondents said they considered themselves Muslims first and
Americans second: http://tinyurl.com/4hycq4
"Muslim first, Canadian by Accident": https://tinyurl.com/l58jz9f
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/shock-poll-51-of-muslims-want-sharia-law-25-okay-with-violence-against-infidels/
Not that shocking, actually.

An irony, where a BBC Panorama video is 'banned' from YouTube in my part
of the world?

Your last video does worry me, not necessarily for the outrageous views
of these muslims, we've heard it all before but our western society is
so full of liberals who still believe these obtuse fuckers can be
assimilated within our culture and if that proves difficult, then we
will give them all the concessions they want to propagate a culture
within a culture, with the aim, to eventually take over the host!

Soon people will say, what happened in a lifetime, to 'our' way of life.

Simply, we gave it all away even making laws against ourselves to help
these fucking morons achieve it!

omega

Dhu on Gate

2017-11-28 10:01:01 UTC

Post by Omega

Post by Omega
Never heard of Pew Research

http://www.pewresearch.org
Their polls can be quite revealing.
A majority of Muslims in several countries support the death penalty for
Muslims who convert away from Islam, including in Afghanistan (79 percent),
Egypt (88 percent), Pakistan (75 percent), the Palestinian territories (62
percent), Jordan (83 percent) and Malaysia (58 percent).
Forty percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories and 39 percent of
Muslims in Afghanistan said attacking civilian targets to defend Islam is
often or sometimes justified. Further, 18 percent of Muslims in Afghanistan
and the Palestinian territories said such actions are “often” justified.
Muslims in many countries don’t have a problem with honor killings. While
majorities of Muslims — though rarely large majorities — surveyed in Central
Asia, Southeast Asia and Southern-Eastern Europe reject honor killings in
all circumstances, Muslims in South Asia and the Middle East-North Africa
seem to have less of a problem with the heinous practice.
One of the questions, which Pew asked of Muslims in 38 countries from
Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, was whether or not they support
making sharia the official law in the country. In many countries, the answer
was overwhelmingly yes.
Check out these statistics: https://tinyurl.com/km7v7f4
1 out of 3 British Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslim apostates
should be executed.
Muslim First, British Second: https://tinyurl.com/mszupnd
47% of respondents said they considered themselves Muslims first and
Americans second: http://tinyurl.com/4hycq4
"Muslim first, Canadian by Accident": https://tinyurl.com/l58jz9f
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/shock-poll-51-of-muslims-want-sharia-law-25-okay-with-violence-against-infidels/
Not that shocking, actually.

An irony, where a BBC Panorama video is 'banned' from YouTube in my part
of the world?
Your last video does worry me, not necessarily for the outrageous views
of these muslims, we've heard it all before but our western society is
so full of liberals who still believe these obtuse fuckers can be
assimilated within our culture and if that proves difficult, then we
will give them all the concessions they want to propagate a culture
within a culture, with the aim, to eventually take over the host!
Soon people will say, what happened in a lifetime, to 'our' way of life.
Simply, we gave it all away even making laws against ourselves to help
these fucking morons achieve it!
omega

Hunh.

Not a word, anywheres, about the Wierld's Largest Moslem country.

Figures don't lie, but Liars sure can figure ;-)

Dhu

--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglaise.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)

http://babayaga.neotext.ca/PublicKeys/Duncan_Patton_a_Campbell_pubkey.txt

harry

2017-11-28 08:42:57 UTC

Post by Omega

Post by abelard

http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/post-brexit-europeans-more-favorable-toward-eu/
remember most countries are net recipients
and i don't trust pew's objectivity...

That is the entire point of the system.

Wellfare dependency.
As ex-commies, they take to it naturally.

James Harris

2017-11-27 15:42:16 UTC

I don't think any of us can say what /would/ happen. We can only guess.
But I do think there is a massive democratic deficit when the peoples of
Europe are ruled over by individuals that they cannot sack via the
ballot box. The whole idea of it is profoundly unwise. Therefore, IMO
each and every member state /should/ hold a referendum periodically on
continuing membership.

Crucially, if the EU knew that it had to put itself before the people
(what you asked about) for approval from time to time then it would have
to start focussing on the needs of the people far more than it does at
the moment. And that would make it a better organisation.

--
James Harris

James Harris

2017-11-27 16:33:41 UTC

Speaking of which, I've just seen that Puigdemont has suggested that
Catalonia be allowed a vote to quit the European Union. Cool!

The ousted Catalan leader came under pressure from his own
pro-independence party today after suggesting that Catalonia should be
allowed a vote to quit the European Union.

Carles Puigdemont said that Brussels was a “club of decadent and
obsolescent countries controlled by a small few and closely linked to
increasingly debatable economic interests”. He added that the EU was
“insensitive to the abuse of human rights” and the democratic wishes of
its citizens.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/puigdemont-calls-for-catalonia-to-leave-eu-zsfj96ph0

--
James Harris

James Hammerton

2017-11-28 21:03:19 UTC

If the EU reformed to become fully democratic, would you still suggest
each country periodically holding a referendum?

Post by James Harris
Crucially, if the EU knew that it had to put itself before the people
(what you asked about) for approval from time to time then it would have
to start focussing on the needs of the people far more than it does at
the moment. And that would make it a better organisation.

Regards,

James

--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/

Joe

2017-11-28 21:53:14 UTC

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:03:19 +0000

Post by James Hammerton
If the EU reformed to become fully democratic,

How are you defining that? The lowest common denominator of democracy
is 'government with the grudging consent of the electorate, as shown by
the lack of an actual revolution', which it arguably has now.

As to actual influence on governing policy, it has often been remarked
that there is no demos, that no section of the EU population would feel
that it had a significant voice, and that its own voice differed quite
significantly from that of its neighbours.

Before the last couple of years, this was felt to be a problem within
the UK, where regions have much more in common than do member states of
the EU. The UK has had one badly-done secession, and came moderately
close to another.

Even after sixty years for the older EU member states, few of them
appear to be able to place common interests over national ones, and the
ruling bureaucracy thinks only of itself and of acquiring ever-greater
central power.

--
Joe

James Hammerton

2017-11-28 22:22:32 UTC

Post by Joe
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 21:03:19 +0000

Post by James Hammerton
If the EU reformed to become fully democratic,

How are you defining that?

Having a government that is either appointed by a directly elected
president who leads said government (e.g. the US model) or formed on the
basis of commanding a majority in the legislature (e.g. the UK model),
with the legislature being elected either way.

The point being that the voters have a real chance to collectively kick
the government of the day out if they don't like what they've been up to.

Of course this would also require a population that views itself as a
nation or a people, with a sufficient sense of shared history and values
to make collective decision making on their behalf make sense.

Post by Joe
The lowest common denominator of democracy
is 'government with the grudging consent of the electorate, as shown by
the lack of an actual revolution', which it arguably has now.

I'll give you that, but you could argue North Korea has that now...

Post by Joe
As to actual influence on governing policy, it has often been remarked
that there is no demos, that no section of the EU population would feel
that it had a significant voice, and that its own voice differed quite
significantly from that of its neighbours.
Before the last couple of years, this was felt to be a problem within
the UK, where regions have much more in common than do member states of
the EU. The UK has had one badly-done secession, and came moderately
close to another.
Even after sixty years for the older EU member states, few of them
appear to be able to place common interests over national ones, and the
ruling bureaucracy thinks only of itself and of acquiring ever-greater
central power.

Your point is well taken - the EU was only beginning to develop the sort
of identification with its institutions and identification with each
other amongst the EU population that normally occurs within stable
nation states.

One thing that surprised me in the EU referendum and the reaction to the
Brexit vote is just how strongly many Britons seem to believe in the EU,
and I say that as a someone who voted Remain, which makes me wonder if
had we gone another 40 years inside the EU would a EU-wide demos have
arisen?

Regards,

James

--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/

James Harris

2017-11-28 21:59:12 UTC

If the EU reformed to become fully democratic, would you still suggest
each country periodically holding a referendum?

Yes and no.

If the EU did reform to become fully democratic in some meaningful
sense, it could put itself in the same position as other democracies. In
that sense, the main objection to it would indeed have been dealt with.
And I would expect that alteration alone to cause it to respond better
to the needs of its peoples because the person or party which won any
election would have to have done so on the basis of promises made to the
peoples.

But what we have seen recently in Britain has highlighted a significant
problem with party-based democracy in that the main British parties were
at odds with the electorate on the European question. Of those parties
who got into the Commons and could form a government not one represented
the people's views on the EU. That's a serious deficiency when their job
is to do exactly that - to represent the people. It took years of UKIP's
campaigning essentially on a single issue before the public had a chance
to vote meaningfully on Brexit.

So IMO we in the UK need changes to the electoral system. The EU
becoming like we are now would be a very good step forward, for sure.
But our system has room to improve, and I would say the same about an EU
arrangement which got itself up that standard.

In fact, with the EU made of so many nations, and their needs and wants
being markedly different economically and culturally, any democratic
system the EU adopted would have to be careful to ensure that smaller
nations and groups were not overlooked. The answer to that is another
topic but they could do worse than push power back down to the
individual nations, much as was done in the UK.

--
James Harris

James Hammerton

2017-11-28 22:41:15 UTC

If the EU reformed to become fully democratic, would you still suggest
each country periodically holding a referendum?

Of course part of the problem here is that people vote for a candidate
for all sorts of reasons, e.g. voting for the Labour candidate because
you believe in the welfare state and believe they'll fund it more
generously than the other parties, even if you don't buy everything
Labour stands for.

General elections are rarely treated by the electorate as a referendum
on a specific issue (even, possibly especially if the government of the
day wishes it were so), and voters are effectively asked to judge the
record of the incumbent candidates and incumbent government against the
promises made by the alternatives.

Thus I can see how issues that might animate a large chunk of the
population if a direct vote on the issue was organised can fail to have
much impact on an election when at best they become one of many issues
floating around in the general melee of political debate.

I'm not sure what the solution is other than if people are sufficiently
motivated by a given issue they can found a party to press that issue
directly.

PR might enable such a party to get further, quicker than FPTP does, but
is that a good thing in general? Did UKIP get a boost from the use of PR
in EU Parliament elections and is that not the ultimate irony if so?

Post by James Harris
So IMO we in the UK need changes to the electoral system.

What would you suggest?

The EU

Post by James Harris
becoming like we are now would be a very good step forward, for sure.
But our system has room to improve, and I would say the same about an EU
arrangement which got itself up that standard.
In fact, with the EU made of so many nations, and their needs and wants
being markedly different economically and culturally, any democratic
system the EU adopted would have to be careful to ensure that smaller
nations and groups were not overlooked. The answer to that is another
topic but they could do worse than push power back down to the
individual nations, much as was done in the UK.

Agreed! I recall when Maastricht was being debated that there was a klot
of talk about how the EU, under the Maastricht Treaty, was going to
observe 'subsidiarity' (the idea that decisions should be taken at the
lowest practical level rather than centralised), but we never heard
about the concept after the treaty was passed... instead the ratchet
towards ever closer union kept on going.

Regards,

James

--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/

James Harris

2017-11-28 23:21:51 UTC

If the EU reformed to become fully democratic, would you still suggest
each country periodically holding a referendum?

Yes, the options put before the electorate are bundles. And that makes
the choice much too blunt. It is really not a good system, even though
it is better than most others.

Post by James Hammerton
General elections are rarely treated by the electorate as a referendum
on a specific issue (even, possibly especially if the government of the
day wishes it were so), and voters are effectively asked to judge the
record of the incumbent candidates and incumbent government against the
promises made by the alternatives.
Thus I can see how issues that might animate a large chunk of the
population if a direct vote on the issue was organised can fail to have
much impact on an election when at best they become one of many issues
floating around in the general melee of political debate.
I'm not sure what the solution is other than if people are sufficiently
motivated by a given issue they can found a party to press that issue
directly.
PR might enable such a party to get further, quicker than FPTP does,

Definitely. For example, in 2015 UKIP got one MP under FPTP whereas they
would have got something like 83 MPs under PR, even if we assume they
weren't squeezed by tactical voting. The difference is massive and meant
that the Commons was poor at representing the people.

Post by James Hammerton
but
is that a good thing in general?

I don't know. It has pros and cons.

Post by James Hammerton
Did UKIP get a boost from the use of PR
in EU Parliament elections and is that not the ultimate irony if so?

PR is able to give a more honest result overall but it loses the
directness of individual representation and tends to lead to weaker
governments which are not held to account for their manifestos.

Post by James Harris
So IMO we in the UK need changes to the electoral system.

What would you suggest?

I don't know. People have suggested various changes to the existing
system but IMO rather than tinkering with small reforms it would be a
good idea to look at the whole topic of how best to represent the
electorate. But that would need a lot of thought and I have never set
aside the time to think through it in enough detail.

Post by James Hammerton
The EU

That's a surprise. I don't remember hearing those discussions but what
you say sounds right and I agree about the ratchet.

--
James Harris

abelard

2017-11-29 09:38:01 UTC

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 23:21:51 +0000, James Harris

Post by James Harris
PR is able to give a more honest result overall but it loses the
directness of individual representation and tends to lead to weaker
governments which are not held to account for their manifestos.

it puts far more power into the hands of the parties and
encourages minorities to wag the dog...

uk governments have long been stable and britain has
kept away from the worst extremism common on the
continent...
ie, it works...

seasoning it with the occasional referendum also seems to
be working...

i've never seen a convincing pragmatic case for pr in the
prime chamber, though an element in the reviewing
house has some appeal as long as they remain a
*strictly* limited reviewing place...

--
www.abelard.org

Andy Walker

2017-11-30 00:13:39 UTC

Post by James Hammerton
I'm not sure what the solution is other than if people are
sufficiently motivated by a given issue they can found a party to
press that issue directly.
PR might enable such a party to get further, quicker than FPTP does,

That depends on what you mean by "further". A single-issue
party is never going to form an effective government, even if the
issue is as important as [eg] Brexit. There are too many other
things [finance, NHS, defence, ...] to consider, and a party that
has no coherent view on such matters is not going to be able to
form a united Cabinet or carry votes in the HoC.

So, de facto, what such a party needs is a voice; and
influence thereby on issues of the day where the party's view is
relevant. Lots of small parties have achieved such influence --
UKIP, Greens, nationalist parties, ... -- sometimes even without
MPs. It depends primarily on having a figurehead who gets on TV,
into the news, ....

After that, it's often a matter of luck. Having a decent
number of MPs can be a curse as much as a blessing. The LibDems
were caught out in 2010; they had to drink the poisoned chalice,
and paid the price in 2015. The SNP have almost no real influence
in the HoC; they're just another opposition party, whose important
people are in their semi-autonomous parliament. OTOH, a small NI
party now finds itself in an interesting position.

Post by James Harris
Definitely. For example, in 2015 UKIP got one MP under FPTP whereas
they would have got something like 83 MPs under PR, even if we assume
they weren't squeezed by tactical voting.

You have to assume, rather, that (a) people would have voted
the same way, and (b) that the particular form of PR would have
produced MPs in proportion to first-choice votes. People can vote
tactically either for or against a party such as UKIP; and most
forms of PR take second, third, ... choices into account, meaning
that any candidates other than the initially bottom [eliminated!]
one(s) could eventually win. See also "Arrow's Theorem".

Post by James Harris
The difference is massive
and meant that the Commons was poor at representing the people.

No, it meant that the HoC was poor at representing UKIP.
In the specific case of Brexit, that may be the same thing; but
for many other aspects of government it probably wasn't. Even in
relation to Brexit, don't forget that in 2015 there was real, even
if misplaced, hope that Mr Cameron might have been able to bring
back more than crumbs from his tours of the EU. Many of us felt
in 2015-16 that the EU had stuck two fingers up at us, which made
it much easier for us to stick two fingers up at them. We'll never
know how the referendum might have gone if the EU had shown even a
small degree of the [allegedly] promised flexibility.

[...]

I agree with the "but ...", but the first bit depends on
what you mean by "honest". Or perhaps what you would mean by
"dishonest". Who is supposed to be telling porkies?

Post by James Harris
[...] People have suggested various changes to the existing system
but IMO rather than tinkering with small reforms it would be a good
idea to look at the whole topic of how best to represent the
electorate. [...]

In real life, you will, beyond reasonable doubt, find that
most of the electorate, end even most politicians, have not the
slightest interest in such matters.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

James Harris

2017-11-30 10:01:24 UTC

Post by Andy Walker

That depends on what you mean by "further". A single-issue
party is never going to form an effective government,

I thought that but look at what happened in Scotland.

Post by Andy Walker
even if the
issue is as important as [eg] Brexit. There are too many other
things [finance, NHS, defence, ...] to consider, and a party that
has no coherent view on such matters is not going to be able to
form a united Cabinet or carry votes in the HoC.
So, de facto, what such a party needs is a voice; and
influence thereby on issues of the day where the party's view is
relevant. Lots of small parties have achieved such influence --
UKIP, Greens, nationalist parties, ... -- sometimes even without
MPs. It depends primarily on having a figurehead who gets on TV,
into the news, ....
After that, it's often a matter of luck. Having a decent
number of MPs can be a curse as much as a blessing. The LibDems
were caught out in 2010; they had to drink the poisoned chalice,
and paid the price in 2015.

Smaller coalition partners can be squeezed but the LibDems added to
their own woe by their u-turns.

Post by Andy Walker
The SNP have almost no real influence
in the HoC; they're just another opposition party, whose important
people are in their semi-autonomous parliament. OTOH, a small NI
party now finds itself in an interesting position.

That's why I mentioned them being squeezed. On balance, I would think
that parties which cannot form a government would lose votes to those
which can. In other words, under PR it is likely that UKIP and the
Greens and others would have got more votes, not fewer.

Post by Andy Walker

Post by James Harris
The difference is massive
and meant that the Commons was poor at representing the people.

No, it meant that the HoC was poor at representing UKIP.

I don't get that. The country wanted to leave the EU. We found that out
later. But the main parties were ALL against it. Hence, they failed to
represent the public. And that's a problem with party politics; voters
can only choose between packages of options NONE OF WHICH might reflect
what they want. That is not democratic.

Post by Andy Walker
In the specific case of Brexit, that may be the same thing; but
for many other aspects of government it probably wasn't. Even in
relation to Brexit, don't forget that in 2015 there was real, even
if misplaced, hope that Mr Cameron might have been able to bring
back more than crumbs from his tours of the EU. Many of us felt
in 2015-16 that the EU had stuck two fingers up at us, which made
it much easier for us to stick two fingers up at them. We'll never
know how the referendum might have gone if the EU had shown even a
small degree of the [allegedly] promised flexibility.
[...]

I agree with the "but ...", but the first bit depends on
what you mean by "honest". Or perhaps what you would mean by
"dishonest". Who is supposed to be telling porkies?

Honest in the sense of more accurately reflecting views.

Post by Andy Walker

In real life, you will, beyond reasonable doubt, find that
most of the electorate, end even most politicians, have not the
slightest interest in such matters.

--
James Harris

Ian Jackson

2017-11-30 10:35:01 UTC

The country wanted to leave the EU. We found that out later. But the
main parties were ALL against it. Hence, they failed to represent the
public. And that's a problem with party politics; voters can only
choose between packages of options NONE OF WHICH might reflect what
they want. That is not democratic.

I think I'm right in saying that the referendum was announced after the
2015 election. It therefore follows that none of the candidates'
manifestos referred to Brexit, and none of the votes they received were
based on the voters' Brexit preference.

If the referendum had been announced BEFORE the election, and all
parties had promised to go through with it regardless of which one
formed the government after the election, then I'm sure that most of the
candidates would have declared their support or opposition to leave the
EU as part (and probably a major part) of their election manifesto.
Those who were subsequently elected would then have been able to vote to
approve for Article 50 honestly and in accordance with their
consciences, and not simply because they felt they ought to in order to
represent the Will Of The People.

--
Ian

abelard

2017-11-30 11:38:58 UTC

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:35:01 +0000, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson

I think I'm right

i'm sure you do...you should stop 'thinking'...'thinking' is bad for
you....

tory manifesto 2015

Scrap the Human Rights Act and introduce a British bill of rights.

Have an in/out referendum on Britains membership of the EU before the
end of 2017.

Post by Ian Jackson
in saying that the referendum was announced after the
2015 election. It therefore follows that none of the candidates'
manifestos referred to Brexit, and none of the votes they received were
based on the voters' Brexit preference.
If the referendum had been announced BEFORE the election, and all
parties had promised to go through with it regardless of which one
formed the government after the election, then I'm sure that most of the
candidates would have declared their support or opposition to leave the
EU as part (and probably a major part) of their election manifesto.
Those who were subsequently elected would then have been able to vote to
approve for Article 50 honestly and in accordance with their
consciences, and not simply because they felt they ought to in order to
represent the Will Of The People.

--
www.abelard.org

James Hammerton

2017-11-30 18:01:34 UTC

Post by Ian Jackson

I think I'm right in saying that the referendum was announced after the
2015 election.

You're wrong.

It was announced that an in/out EU referendum would be Tory policy if
they won the 2015 general election back in 2013:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg

It was then included in the 2015 manifesto, with an explicit commitment
to honour the result:
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf
see page number 72 (actually the 74th page of the document)

Holding the referendum and abiding by the result was a 2015 manifesto
commitment of the Tory party, one which the Tory government is so far
trying to honour.

Regards,

James

--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/

Ian Jackson

2017-11-30 20:24:06 UTC

Post by Ian Jackson

I think I'm right in saying that the referendum was announced after
the 2015 election.

You're wrong.

So I understand!

Post by James Hammerton
It was announced that an in/out EU referendum would be Tory policy if
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg
It was then included in the 2015 manifesto, with an explicit commitment
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto20
15.pdf see page number 72 (actually the 74th page of the document)
Holding the referendum and abiding by the result was a 2015 manifesto
commitment of the Tory party, one which the Tory government is so far
trying to honour.
Regards,
James

I wonder how many of the those who were standing for the 2015 election
let it be known what their personal opinions were about a possible
Brexit? When it came to the actual referendum, didn't the government
recommend that we should remain?

Nevertheless, when it came to voting to approve Article 50, I understand
that the personal convictions of a large number of MPs (both Tory and
Labour) was to reject it - and they only voted Yes in order to fulfil
the Will Of The People.

--
Ian

James Hammerton

2017-11-30 22:47:00 UTC

That depends on what you mean by "further". A single-issue
party is never going to form an effective government,

I thought that but look at what happened in Scotland.

even if the
issue is as important as [eg] Brexit. There are too many other
things [finance, NHS, defence, ...] to consider, and a party that
has no coherent view on such matters is not going to be able to
form a united Cabinet or carry votes in the HoC.
So, de facto, what such a party needs is a voice; and
influence thereby on issues of the day where the party's view is
relevant. Lots of small parties have achieved such influence --
UKIP, Greens, nationalist parties, ... -- sometimes even without
MPs. It depends primarily on having a figurehead who gets on TV,
into the news, ....
After that, it's often a matter of luck. Having a decent
number of MPs can be a curse as much as a blessing. The LibDems
were caught out in 2010; they had to drink the poisoned chalice,
and paid the price in 2015.

Smaller coalition partners can be squeezed but the LibDems added to
their own woe by their u-turns.

In government, the Lib Dems were forced to make choices rather than be
all things to all men. It's debatable whether they'd have survived had
they not u-turned on the tuition fees pledge given that they were doing
things in government that were going to be unpopular with students and
with many left of centre voters they'd courted anyway. That said, I
think they could have held their ground on tuition fees and proposed a
graduate tax and might have faired a bit better than they did if so, but
I get the impression it wasn't all down to tuition fees, that was just
the issue that people cited to illustrate their distrust of them.

The SNP have almost no real influence
in the HoC; they're just another opposition party, whose important
people are in their semi-autonomous parliament. OTOH, a small NI
party now finds itself in an interesting position.

Post by James Harris
The difference is massive
and meant that the Commons was poor at representing the people.

No, it meant that the HoC was poor at representing UKIP.

I don't get that. The country wanted to leave the EU. We found that out
later. But the main parties were ALL against it.

But the Tories had promised to hold and honour the EU referendum - they
did so for a reason (to get reelected despite the challenge UKIP were
offering). Anyone who wanted out of the EU knew what to do - either vote
Tory and then vote to leave in the referendum, or vote UKIP to keep the
Tories honest on this point...

And of course, the Tory party was well known for having an EU sceptic
wing... that Labour had its EU sceptic wing and EU sceptic voters was
perhaps less obvious at that time.

Hence, they failed to

Post by James Harris
represent the public. And that's a problem with party politics; voters
can only choose between packages of options NONE OF WHICH might reflect
what they want. That is not democratic.

ISTM the only way to avoid this bundling problem is direct democracy -
voters voting directly on the issues rather than representative
democracy where we delegate our decisions to our representatives so that
we don't have to make the decisions ourselves.

In the specific case of Brexit, that may be the same thing; but
for many other aspects of government it probably wasn't. Even in
relation to Brexit, don't forget that in 2015 there was real, even
if misplaced, hope that Mr Cameron might have been able to bring
back more than crumbs from his tours of the EU. Many of us felt
in 2015-16 that the EU had stuck two fingers up at us, which made
it much easier for us to stick two fingers up at them. We'll never
know how the referendum might have gone if the EU had shown even a
small degree of the [allegedly] promised flexibility.
[...]

I agree with the "but ...", but the first bit depends on
what you mean by "honest". Or perhaps what you would mean by
"dishonest". Who is supposed to be telling porkies?

Honest in the sense of more accurately reflecting views.

Well it more accurately reflects party support than FPTP, though that
may be a reasonable proxy for reflecting views.

In real life, you will, beyond reasonable doubt, find that
most of the electorate, end even most politicians, have not the
slightest interest in such matters.

Regards,

James

--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/

Andy Walker

2017-12-01 23:36:36 UTC

[...] And that's a problem with party politics; voters can only
choose between packages of options NONE OF WHICH might reflect what
they want. That is not democratic.

ISTM the only way to avoid this bundling problem is direct democracy
- voters voting directly on the issues rather than representative
democracy where we delegate our decisions to our representatives so
that we don't have to make the decisions ourselves.

These days, there is a practicable alternative, just about.
Make us all MPs, allow [encourage? enforce?] proxy voting, and allow
only the 600 [or whatever] with the most proxies to enter the HoC,
cast their votes, and enjoy the privileges of membership [such as
office space, secretarial support, travel expenses]. As an ordinary
punter, virtually certain therefore not to be an active MP, it is
then your task to find someone to give your proxy to. That *could*
be someone with a party label; but it could be a friend from the
other side of the country who happens to share your political views,
or it could be someone who shares your interest in football, or in
the history of your locality, or your stance on some big issue of
the day. If that person in turn is not an active MP, then their
votes go to someone who best represents them, and so on. At any
time, you can withdraw your proxy and give it to someone else.

Anyone whose views represent [in this case] at least 1/600
of the population is thus guaranteed to become an active MP; if you
can't get even this much support, then you can't really complain if
your views don't make much headway. In reality, some popular MPs
might carry a million or more votes, and correspondingly the bottom
MPs would probably carry less than 1/2000 of the population, call it
30000 votes.

The bureaucracy needed to support such a system would have
been impossible a few decades back. It is now a relatively simple
computing/IT task. There would need to be some delays built in,
else the bottom MPs would be in/out/in/out hour by hour as people
changed their proxies in response to issues that arose, and there
would need to be checks to prevent loops, to deal with deaths and
illnesses, and so on. But nothing "difficult".

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

Andy Walker

2017-12-01 23:12:41 UTC

[...] A single-issue
party is never going to form an effective government,

I thought that but look at what happened in Scotland.

Just so ....

OK, more seriously: SNP is no longer a single-issue party
in Scotland. They have to take views on health, education, etc.,
that were none of their concern when they were a small party with
a single aim of independence for Scotland. Those views put them
and their supporters either into alliance or into opposition with
the other main parties. Given so many main parties, the natural
state is going to be a coalition, which will shift in the usual
political way. I doubt whether as many as four main parties can
survive long-term; "us", "them" and "a plague on both your houses"
is about as much as the electorate can tolerate. So it seems likely
that one of them will disappear or will be subsumed into another.
Which one is another matter -- for Scots to determine.

[...]> On balance, I would think

Post by James Harris
that parties which cannot form a government would lose votes to those
which can. In other words, under PR it is likely that UKIP and the
Greens and others would have got more votes, not fewer.

Possibly. But the LibDems [and their predecessor parties]
always received a decent number of votes, even when it seemed
impossible for them to be part of government, and lost votes when
it seemed more likely. I recall making the point back in 2010 that
the LibDems had no choice but to enter the coalition -- if you're
not prepared to be in government when you get the chance, then you
can't even pretend to be a party aspiring to power. But it was an
unpopular choice, with many of their supporters claiming that they
didn't vote LibDem to support the Conservatives. OK -- but in that
case, why did they vote LibDem? Because they didn't want power?
It's a nonsense.

[FPTP:]

Post by James Harris
The difference is massive
and meant that the Commons was poor at representing the people.

No, it meant that the HoC was poor at representing UKIP.

I don't get that. The country wanted to leave the EU. We found that
out later. But the main parties were ALL against it.

The parties were; many individual MPs weren't -- and were
quite vocal in expressing that. Further, it's an assumption [which
is very likely false] that in 2015 we wanted to leave the EU. As
per my PP, we were told that we had many allies for reform within
the EU, and Mr Cameron toured Europe to drum up support. If he had
come back with anything even remotely resembling the promises, he
would very likely [IMO] have secured a large majority for "Remain".
But the EU leaders [with one or two exceptions] were intransigent,
and have remained so through the referendum campaign and beyond.
If they wanted us to vote "Leave", and then wanted opinion here to
harden, it's hard to see how they could have done a better job.

Post by James Harris
Hence, they
failed to represent the public. And that's a problem with party
politics; voters can only choose between packages of options NONE OF
WHICH might reflect what they want. That is not democratic.

Then stand yourself, offer your perfect package, and see how
much support you get. That *is* democratic. There are good reasons
why it doesn't, in general, work too well, and so why we get party
politics. It has little to do with the electoral system.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

James Hammerton

2017-12-02 00:25:25 UTC

[...] A single-issue
party is never going to form an effective government,

I thought that but look at what happened in Scotland.

Just so ....
OK, more seriously: SNP is no longer a single-issue party
in Scotland. They have to take views on health, education, etc.,
that were none of their concern when they were a small party with
a single aim of independence for Scotland. Those views put them
and their supporters either into alliance or into opposition with
the other main parties. Given so many main parties, the natural
state is going to be a coalition, which will shift in the usual
political way. I doubt whether as many as four main parties can
survive long-term; "us", "them" and "a plague on both your houses"
is about as much as the electorate can tolerate. So it seems likely
that one of them will disappear or will be subsumed into another.
Which one is another matter -- for Scots to determine.
[...]> On balance, I would think

To which you could add that the one policy Lib Dems (and predecessors)
have been famous for decades is adopting PR, which entails coalition
governments becoming the norm in a parliamentary system. Turning down
the option of forming a coalition after arguing for decades that
coalitions are a better form of government because of the compromises
they involve would seem rather hypocritical...

Regards,

James

--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/

James Harris

2017-12-03 16:36:21 UTC

[...] A single-issue
party is never going to form an effective government,

I thought that but look at what happened in Scotland.

Just so ....
OK, more seriously: SNP is no longer a single-issue party
in Scotland. They have to take views on health, education, etc.,
that were none of their concern when they were a small party with
a single aim of independence for Scotland. Those views put them
and their supporters either into alliance or into opposition with
the other main parties. Given so many main parties, the natural
state is going to be a coalition, which will shift in the usual
political way. I doubt whether as many as four main parties can
survive long-term; "us", "them" and "a plague on both your houses"
is about as much as the electorate can tolerate. So it seems likely
that one of them will disappear or will be subsumed into another.
Which one is another matter -- for Scots to determine.
[...]> On balance, I would think

I have nothing against the LibDems as a group but have been surprised at
how hypocritical the current lot are. At least, I've seen that a
preponderance of those who are hypocritical about Brexit are LibDems.
For example, when Nick Clegg thought he would win the referendum he said
that people should accept the result and he denounced those who would
not. But since his side lost he has done anything but accept it. He
continues to campaign to reverse it in every TV studio that will have
him, is organising meetings with fellow objectors and has even written a
book on "how to stop Brexit". And Clegg is not the only one. Farron,
Ashdown, and Cable have all made 180-degree turns.

--
James Harris

James Hammerton

2017-11-30 22:31:41 UTC

Agreed - however gaining a bunch of seats in parliament would itself
raise the profile and enable that voice to be heard (at least so long as
it doesn't come with the encumbrance of government). After UKIP won a
bunch of seats in the European Parliament they received a lot more
coverage in the news and their voice - i.e. Farage for the most part -
was given a lot more air time.

I wonder how far they'd have got without winning those Euro seats.

After that, it's often a matter of luck. Having a decent
number of MPs can be a curse as much as a blessing.

That depends on whether you truly aim to govern or not...

The LibDems

were caught out in 2010; they had to drink the poisoned chalice,
and paid the price in 2015. The SNP have almost no real influence
in the HoC; they're just another opposition party, whose important
people are in their semi-autonomous parliament.

Agreed re: the SNP - and they certainly had an element of luck, they
become the de facto opposition at Holyrood because the Tories had become
a rare breed in Scotland, ISTM they won in 2007 in Holyrood largely
through not being the Tories and not being Labour (for those who'd had
enough of the Labour/Lib Dem coalition at Holyrood), then they governed
Holyrood in a manner not much worse than Labour and the Lib Dems before
them, and increased their vote in 2011 and then they went for the indyref...

OTOH, a small NI
party now finds itself in an interesting position.

Yup - I bet they never expected it either, just like the Lib Dems didn't
expect to be king makers in 2010...

Just to add: there's also an implicit assumption in this discussion that
those who voted for Brexit in the referendum were of that view in 2015
but didn't get represented due to UKIP's failure to win seats. However
the fact UKIP were third in vote tally in 2015 and well below the
numbers who actually voted Brexit suggests many people who did vote
Brexit did not vote UKIP in 2015.

Post by James Harris
The difference is massive
and meant that the Commons was poor at representing the people.

No, it meant that the HoC was poor at representing UKIP.
In the specific case of Brexit, that may be the same thing;

In 2015, UKIP got 3.8 million votes, less than 1/4 of the 17.4 million
who later voted for Brexit in the referendum. Did minds change? Did
people vote Tory in 2015 because they saw the chance to vote for Brexit
in the referendum they promised? If so you could argue that UKIP's poor
showing did not mean that Brexit was poorly represented - the exit door
had been provided by Cameron's pledge to hold the in/out referendum.

but

for many other aspects of government it probably wasn't. Even in
relation to Brexit, don't forget that in 2015 there was real, even
if misplaced, hope that Mr Cameron might have been able to bring
back more than crumbs from his tours of the EU. Many of us felt
in 2015-16 that the EU had stuck two fingers up at us, which made
it much easier for us to stick two fingers up at them. We'll never
know how the referendum might have gone if the EU had shown even a
small degree of the [allegedly] promised flexibility.
[...]

I agree with the "but ...", but the first bit depends on
what you mean by "honest". Or perhaps what you would mean by
"dishonest". Who is supposed to be telling porkies?

I presume 'honest' here is that PR aims to reflect the level of support
each party has in the country, in contrast to FPTP which makes no such
attempt and instead opts to tell us which party can obtain the most
votes in each constituency...

In real life, you will, beyond reasonable doubt, find that
most of the electorate, end even most politicians, have not the
slightest interest in such matters.

The fate of the AV referendum is instructive as is the fate of the Lib
Dems on this point...

Regards,

James

--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/

James Hammerton

2017-11-30 18:24:20 UTC

If the EU reformed to become fully democratic, would you still suggest
each country periodically holding a referendum?

Yes, the options put before the electorate are bundles. And that makes
the choice much too blunt. It is really not a good system, even though
it is better than most others.

Only a move to more direct democracy (i.e. more referendums) would alter
the problem of bundling. PR means the bundles on offer from the eventual
winners and the bundles enacted by the subsequently elected governments
bear less relation to each other than they do under FPTP due to the
tendency to produce coalition government under PR and thus do horse
trading to agree a programme.

Admittedly FPTP occasionally produces hung parliaments (2010, 2017) and
PR sometimes produces majority governments (SNP 2011 at Holyrood), but
these outcomes are not the normal result of elections under the
respective systems.

Definitely. For example, in 2015 UKIP got one MP under FPTP whereas they
would have got something like 83 MPs under PR, even if we assume they
weren't squeezed by tactical voting.

This assumes people's votes under PR would have been the same as under
FPTP. On the one hand, PR may enable you to vote enthusiastically for
your preferred party no matter how small that party is without worrying
about 'splitting the vote', on the other hand FPTP may allow you (in a
'safe' seat for one of the main parties) to vote for a protest party
confident that they're unlikely to make it into government and the main
impact is that you signal to the main parties that they're ignoring
something important to you.

The difference is massive and meant

Post by James Harris
that the Commons was poor at representing the people.

Post by James Hammerton
but
is that a good thing in general?

I don't know. It has pros and cons.

Post by James Hammerton
Did UKIP get a boost from the use of PR
in EU Parliament elections and is that not the ultimate irony if so?

To answer my own question: If UKIP had not gained the publicity they
gained from getting a lot of MEPs I wonder how successful they would
have been at pressuring the Tories for votes/a shift in policy on the EU
in the UK elections. That band of MEPs gave them a bit of clout and
resources to campaign with, and meant the broadcasters felt they had to
give them coverage as a major participant in Britain's Euro elections.

Post by James Harris
PR is able to give a more honest result overall

It better reflects the level of support for each party overall, whereas
FPTP reflects which party is better at fielding the most popular
candidate in each constituency.

but it loses the

Post by James Harris
directness of individual representation and tends to lead to weaker
governments which are not held to account for their manifestos.

Regards,

James

--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/

borkbork

2017-11-27 17:05:34 UTC

there would be a collection of tinpot dictatorships, like the UK, now.
which would start warring

what would happen? war in europe - just like churchill etc stated. That
the EU, an advanced superstate, form of cooperation would prevent another
global conflict originating in europe

this government (for example) does not have the capacity to govern, they
cannot even make a respresentation for brexit, that has been demonstrated.

there is also the question of insularity, the use of propaganda,
arrogance and irresponsibility, all demonstrated by the may
administration

farage and her blundering follower may, have collapsed it all

she has no ideas at all, no creativity, no belief in anything -- she did
not believe in brexit. She has chosen nationalism, blame, because it is
easy. She is a rabble rouser, like hitler, trump.

She is collapsing europe, NI, because she is an evil, self-interested
dicator without the capacity to fully understand the damage she is doing.
Without any decency at all, without of any thought of a future apart from
that of control, enabling party of right wing caricatures, thugs
associated with corporations

The tories are now UKIP. The shell of a discredited, disintegrated party

Byker

2017-12-01 20:29:30 UTC

Post by Omega
Never heard of Pew Research

http://www.pewresearch.org

Have you heard that Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live
peacefully and only a "tiny minority of extremists" practice violence?
That's like saying that White supremacy must be perfectly fine since only a
tiny minority of racists ever hurt anyone. Neither does it explain why
religious violence is largely endemic to Islam, despite the tremendous
persecution of religious minorities in Muslim countries.

In truth, even a tiny minority of "1%" of Muslims worldwide translates to 15
million believers - which is hardly an insignificant number. However, the
"minority" of Muslims who approve of terrorists, their goals, or their means
of achieving them is much greater than this. In fact, it isn't even a true
minority in some cases, depending on how goals and targets are defined.

The following polls convey what Muslims say are their attitudes toward
terrorism, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks, violence in defense
of Islam, Sharia, honor killings, and matters concerning assimilation in
Western society. The results are all the more astonishing because most of
the polls were conducted by organizations with an obvious interest in
"discovering" agreeable statistics that downplay any cause for concern.

These have been compiled over the years, so not all links remain active.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

Channel Four (2006): 31% of younger British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were
justified compared to 14% of those over 45.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/living%20apart%20together%20-%20jan%2007.pdf

People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in
Iraq.
http://people-press.org/report/206/a-year-after-iraq-war

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish
family, including the children:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/06/32-of-palestinians-support-infanticide/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4053251,00.html

World Public Opinion: 83% of Egyptians approve of attacks on American
troops.
26% of Indonesians approve of attacks on American troops.
26% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on American troops.
68% of Moroccans approve of attacks on American troops.
90% of Palestinians approve of attacks on American troops.
72% of Jordanians approve of attacks on American troops.
52% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (39%
oppose)
A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on American
troops.
About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with
al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

World Public Opinion (2009): 30% of Palestinians support attacks on American
civilians working in Muslim countries. 24% support the murder of Americans
on U.S. soil.
Only 74% of Turks and 55% of Pakistanis disapprove of terror attacks against
civilians on U.S. soil.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

Pew Research (2010): 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah
30% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hezbollah
45% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hezbollah (26% negative)
43% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hezbollah (30% negative)
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34%
negative).
49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas (48% negative)
49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hamas (25% negative)
39% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hamas (33% negative)
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often
or sometimes justified.
34% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes
justified.
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

16% of young Muslims in Belgium state terrorism is "acceptable".
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1275/Islam/article/detail/1619036/2013/04/22/Zestien-procent-moslimjongens-vindt-terrorisme-aanvaardbaar.dhtml

Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall)
believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified.
1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide
bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24%
overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35%
overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13%
overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25%
overall).
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are
often or sometimes justified (81% never).
28% of Egyptian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes
justified (38% never).
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their
religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are
justified
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

27% of British Muslims do not support the deportation of Islamic extremists
preaching violence and hate.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist.html

Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in
Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to
report terrorists to police.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Populus Poll (2006): 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against
Israelis are justified.
37% believe Jews in Britain are a "legitimate target".
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

World Public Opinion: Majorities in Egypt (63%) and Libya (61%) supported
the 9/11/2012 attacks against American embassies, including Benghazi.
Original Link:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/727.php?nid=&id=&pnt=727
(Removed) (Reference in this link)

Pew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against
civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is
partially justified and never justified).
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

Pew Research (2013): 15% of Muslims in Turkey support suicide bombings (also
11% in Kosovo, 26% in Malaysia and 26% in Bangladesh).
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf

PCPO (2014): 89% of Palestinians support Hamas and other terrorists firing
rockets at Israeli civilians.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/poll-89-of-palestinians-support-jihad-terror-attacks-on-israely

Pew Research (2013): Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda.
Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban. 13% support both groups and 1 in 4
refuse to say.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

BBC Radio (2015): 45% of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching
violence against the West represent "mainstream Islam".
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-radio-4-today-muslim-poll/

Palestinian Center for Political Research (2015): 74% of Palestinians
support Hamas terror attacks.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/support-for-hamas-skyrockets-following-war-poll-shows/

Pew Research (2014): 47% of Bangladeshi Muslims says suicide bombings and
violence are justified to "defend Islam". 1 in 4 believed the same in
Tanzania and Egypt. 1 in 5 Muslims in the 'moderate' countries of Turkey
and Malaysia.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/

The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that
violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States
(66% disagree).
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-Polling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf

The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 25% of Muslim-Americans say that
violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the
"global Jihad (64% disagree).
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-Polling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf

The Sun (2015: Following Nov. 2015 attacks in Paris, 1 in 4 young Muslims in
Britain (and 1 in 5 overall) said they sympathize with those who fight for
ISIS.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6758207/1-in-5-British-Muslims-have-sympathy-for-jihadis-in-poll.html
(link removed)

ICM (2016): 2 in 3 Muslims in Britain would not report terror plot to
police.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/659913/two-in-three-British-Muslims-would-NOT-give-police-terror-tip-offs
http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/1.713917

East West University (Bangladesh) (2016): 1 in 10 Bangladeshi university
students support terrorism. Of these, more than half (52%) are from
well-off families.
http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2016/11/21/study-finds-10-percent-students-in-bangladesh-universities-support-terrorism

Policy Exchange (2016): 48% if British Muslims would not report a person
"linked to terror."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2308529/half-british-muslims-would-not-report-is-supporters/

See also: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism) for
further statistics on Islamic terror.

"Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to
them; and their abode is hell, and evil is their destination" -- Quran 9:73

finally ditched mimo

2017-12-01 20:57:49 UTC

Post by Omega
Never heard of Pew Research

http://www.pewresearch.org
Have you heard that Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live
peacefully and only a "tiny minority of extremists" practice violence?

Have you heard that Christianity is a peaceful religion because most
Christians live peacefully?

After all, no wars have ever been started or perpetuated by Christians, and
no Christian would ever kill anyone.

So there...

Post by Byker
That's like saying that White supremacy must be perfectly fine since only a
tiny minority of racists ever hurt anyone. Neither does it explain why
religious violence is largely endemic to Islam, despite the tremendous
persecution of religious minorities in Muslim countries.
In truth, even a tiny minority of "1%" of Muslims worldwide translates to 15
million believers - which is hardly an insignificant number. However, the
"minority" of Muslims who approve of terrorists, their goals, or their means
of achieving them is much greater than this. In fact, it isn't even a true
minority in some cases, depending on how goals and targets are defined.
The following polls convey what Muslims say are their attitudes toward
terrorism, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks, violence in defense
of Islam, Sharia, honor killings, and matters concerning assimilation in
Western society. The results are all the more astonishing because most of
the polls were conducted by organizations with an obvious interest in
"discovering" agreeable statistics that downplay any cause for concern.
These have been compiled over the years, so not all links remain active.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-wa
nt-sharia-law-in-UK.html
NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-
04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY
Channel Four (2006): 31% of younger British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were
justified compared to 14% of those over 45.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/living%20apart%20together
%20-%20jan%2007.pdf
People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in
Iraq.
http://people-press.org/report/206/a-year-after-iraq-war
YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/06/32-of-palestinians-support-infantici
de/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4053251,00.html
World Public Opinion: 83% of Egyptians approve of attacks on American
troops.
26% of Indonesians approve of attacks on American troops.
26% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on American troops.
68% of Moroccans approve of attacks on American troops.
90% of Palestinians approve of attacks on American troops.
72% of Jordanians approve of attacks on American troops.
52% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (39%
oppose)
A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on American
troops.
About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with
al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf
World Public Opinion (2009): 30% of Palestinians support attacks on American
civilians working in Muslim countries. 24% support the murder of Americans
on U.S. soil.
Only 74% of Turks and 55% of Pakistanis disapprove of terror attacks against
civilians on U.S. soil.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf
Pew Research (2010): 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah
30% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hezbollah
45% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hezbollah (26% negative)
43% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hezbollah (30% negative)
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-
hezbollah/
Pew Research (2010): 60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34%
negative).
49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas (48% negative)
49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hamas (25% negative)
39% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hamas (33% negative)
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-
hezbollah/
Pew Research (2010): 15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often
or sometimes justified.
34% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes
justified.
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-
hezbollah/
16% of young Muslims in Belgium state terrorism is "acceptable".
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/1275/Islam/article/detail/1619036/2013/04/22/Zestien-
procent-moslimjongens-vindt-terrorisme-aanvaardbaar.dhtml
Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall)
believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified.
1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-is
lamist
Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide
bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24%
overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35%
overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13%
overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25%
overall).
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60
Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are
often or sometimes justified (81% never).
28% of Egyptian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes
justified (38% never).
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-
alienation-or-support-for-extremism/
Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their
religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are
justified
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60
27% of British Muslims do not support the deportation of Islamic extremists
preaching violence and hate.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-is
lamist.html
Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in
Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-is
lamist
ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to
report terrorists to police.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-is
lamist
Populus Poll (2006): 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against
Israelis are justified.
37% believe Jews in Britain are a "legitimate target".
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-is
lamist
World Public Opinion: Majorities in Egypt (63%) and Libya (61%) supported
the 9/11/2012 attacks against American embassies, including Benghazi.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/727.php
?nid=&id=&pnt=727
(Removed) (Reference in this link)
Pew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against
civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is
partially justified and never justified).
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worl
ds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
Pew Research (2013): 15% of Muslims in Turkey support suicide bombings (also
11% in Kosovo, 26% in Malaysia and 26% in Bangladesh).
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worl
ds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
PCPO (2014): 89% of Palestinians support Hamas and other terrorists firing
rockets at Israeli civilians.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/poll-89-of-palestinians-support-jihad-terror
-attacks-on-israely
Pew Research (2013): Only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda.
Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban. 13% support both groups and 1 in 4
refuse to say.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extrem
ist-groups/
BBC Radio (2015): 45% of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching
violence against the West represent "mainstream Islam".
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-radio-4-today-muslim-poll/
Palestinian Center for Political Research (2015): 74% of Palestinians
support Hamas terror attacks.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/support-for-hamas-skyrockets-following-war-poll-s
hows/
Pew Research (2014): 47% of Bangladeshi Muslims says suicide bombings and
violence are justified to "defend Islam". 1 in 4 believed the same in
Tanzania and Egypt. 1 in 5 Muslims in the 'moderate' countries of Turkey
and Malaysia.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-ri
se-in-middle-east/
The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of Muslim-Americans say that
violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law in the United States
(66% disagree).
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-P
olling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf
The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 25% of Muslim-Americans say that
violence against Americans in the United States is justified as part of the
"global Jihad (64% disagree).
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150612-CSP-P
olling-Company-Nationwide-Online-Survey-of-Muslims-Topline-Poll-Data.pdf
The Sun (2015: Following Nov. 2015 attacks in Paris, 1 in 4 young Muslims in
Britain (and 1 in 5 overall) said they sympathize with those who fight for
ISIS.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6758207/1-in-5-British-Musl
ims-have-sympathy-for-jihadis-in-poll.html
(link removed)
ICM (2016): 2 in 3 Muslims in Britain would not report terror plot to
police.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/659913/two-in-three-British-Muslims-would-NOT
-give-police-terror-tip-offs
http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/1.713917
East West University (Bangladesh) (2016): 1 in 10 Bangladeshi university
students support terrorism. Of these, more than half (52%) are from
well-off families.
http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2016/11/21/study-finds-10-percent-students-in-b
angladesh-universities-support-terrorism
Policy Exchange (2016): 48% if British Muslims would not report a person
"linked to terror."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2308529/half-british-muslims-would-not-report-is
-supporters/
See also: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism) for
further statistics on Islamic terror.
"Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to
them; and their abode is hell, and evil is their destination" -- Quran 9:73

Byker

2017-12-01 21:16:06 UTC

Post by finally ditched mimo
So there...

I might add that 99.9% of Christian fundamentalists won't lift a finger
against queers, blacks, Muslims, Antifa radicals, illegal aliens, or any
other "Godless heathen cretins." It's just they'd make little effort to stop
the 0.1% would round up and liquidate the undesirables. You ought to hear
the way they carry on when there are no "outsiders" within earshot. I've
only been hearing it for the last forty years here in the Heartland.

This hasn't happened yet in the U.S., but give it time. When things get bad
enough, it's entirely possible to twist Scripture around to produce
Christian suicide bombers...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Jihad: Could There Be a Christian Bin Laden?

Jonny Scaramanga
Jun 20, 2012

I recently made the controversial claim that I could have been a suicide
bomber: https://tinyurl.com/y78pe4kp

I claimed that my faith was so devout, and my ability for critical thought
so crippled, that if someone had shown me an interpretation of Scripture
that made it seem like God's will, I would have killed for the faith. And I
was depressed enough to kill myself, because fundamentalism doesn't offer
any real answers.

Of course, Christians will deny a Biblical basis for such actions is
possible. But Islamic scholars claim such a reading of the Koran is equally
unsustainable, yet suicide bombers exist, and only preposterously
politically-correct liberal commentators deny that faith is a motivating
factor. So today I'll show that, in principle, there's no reason why a
Christian suicide bomber couldn't arise. Here's what their propaganda
leaflets might look like:

A dead, bearded, Middle Eastern man. Do not confuse with Jesus.

Jesus has called us to bring the world to Him. But today, we have let the
godless throw Him out. God is blasphemed on television every day. A
holocaust of God's children sees millions of babies murdered in abortion
clinics across the world. Muslims, the followers of the devil, immigrate to
our country every day and open Mosques in rejection of the One True Lord.
They are accorded respect, while Christianity is marginalized and prayer to
God in council meetings is banned. Homosexuals are accorded respect by the
established church, when God told us they would not inherit his kingdom (1
Corinthians 6:9). We see our God mocked and yet we stand by and do nothing.
It is time to take action. Jesus told us this would be necessary:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace,
but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and
the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother
in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he
that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that
taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that
findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake
shall find it.

Matthew 10:34-39, see also Luke 12:51-53

We have ignored God's Word and become unequally yoked with unbelievers (2
Corinthians 6:14), allowing Godless men to run our country. We have become
friends of the world, and God has removed His hand of protection.

Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the
world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world
is the enemy of God.

James 4:4

The results of this are plain to see. Our country has been hit by terrorist
attacks and an economic recession as the blessing of God is taken from us.
It is time to attack, just as God commanded His children to destroy the
Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amonites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the
Hivites, and the Jebusites:

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite
them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor
shew mercy unto them.

Deuteronomy 7:2

We must not fail in this mission. God commands us to put to death
blasphemers, those who ignore the Sabbath, homosexuals, psychics, and
children who refuse to obey the LORD's commands through their parents.
Today, we let disobedient children run riot, when Jesus Himself told us
disobedient children must die. And the LORD Jesus specifically told us we
must keep the commands of the Law.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever
therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men
so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever
shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven.

Matthew 5:18-19

In the Book of Revelation, Jesus tells the church at Thyatira that he has "a
few things against" the church, because they it tolerates fornication. Let
us not be like them, for Jesus tells us He will give us according to our
works. We must fulfil the words of God's prophetic book, and kill the
fornicating children of Jezebel.

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest
that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to
seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto
idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented
not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with
her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will
kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that am he
which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you
according to your works.

Revelation 2:20-23

So brothers, let us unleash the promised vengeance of the LORD, knowing the
glory of eternal life we will receive as God's reward.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the
ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much
fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in
this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

John 12:24-25

What I Am Not Saying
I am not saying that this is a coherent reading of the Bible, or that this
is what Christians believe. I am not pretending that a competent theologian
(or just someone who's read the Bible) could not thoroughly rebut this
argument.

What I Am Saying
1) Christians who cherry pick violent verses from the Koran as an attack on
Muslims are being hypocritical.

2) If you claim, as fundamentalists do, that the Bible is 100% consistent,
equally and in all parts the Word of God, and intended to be taken
literally, there is no logical way around this argument.

3) Fundamentalism offers no bulwark against this kind of thing happening,
because it disables the one weapon we have against it: logical reasoning.

4) Because fundamentalism teaches that all Scripture is equal, without
error, and without contradiction, a credulous fundamentalist could fall for
this. Someone making the argument above would have to explain away a few
well-known verses about love (etc.), but this could be done by saying that
those who have repeatedly rejected God do not deserve this love.

Is This Likely?

It's not as unlikely as apologists want to think. Alice Miller has argued
very strongly that authoritarian parenting and strict corporal punishment
helped to form Adolf Hitler's character. Professor David Berliner further
argues that this parenting style is remarkably similar to that advocated by
Christian fundamentalists in their books on child-rearing.

There is already evidence in America that fundamentalists see themselves as
a persecuted minority. I often discuss with Adam Laats, who takes a much
more generous attitude to the Christian Right than me, the way
fundamentalist America views itself as marginalized. If they also suffer in
an economic depression and view atheists or other religions as receiving
preferential treatment (regardless of the accuracy of that perception), a
fundamentalist Christian terrorist is not beyond the realms of imagination.

Arguably, instances of Christian terrorism are already occurring. The Army
of God explicitly uses the Bible to support bombing abortion clinics and
murdering abortionists at their website. Of course, evangelicals will
distance themselves from this, saying these people "aren't true Christians."
But that defense doesn't work. If you insist that all Scripture is equally
the Word of God, and that the Bible is 100% consistent, then you cannot
logically denounce any argument supported by Bible verses. Furthermore, the
reading of Scripture I've used above does not contradict any of the core
tenets of conservative Christian faith.

As I already said, I was a devout, Bible-believing, conservative,
fundamentalist Christian and I'm sure that, aged 14, if a charismatic youth
leader had tried to persuade me of this, I could have gone for it. And it
would have been the belief itself that motivated me primarily.

I am using this extreme example to make a more important point: If you truly
believe something, you will act on it. Faith can make good people do evil
things. This is why fundamentalism must be fought.

https://tinyurl.com/ya2s33oy

Omega

2017-12-02 08:50:26 UTC

Post by finally ditched mimo
So there...

I might add that 99.9% of Christian fundamentalists won't lift a finger
against queers, blacks, Muslims, Antifa radicals, illegal aliens, or any
other "Godless heathen cretins." It's just they'd make little effort to stop
the 0.1% would round up and liquidate the undesirables. You ought to hear
the way they carry on when there are no "outsiders" within earshot. I've
only been hearing it for the last forty years here in the Heartland.
This hasn't happened yet in the U.S., but give it time. When things get
bad
enough, it's entirely possible to twist Scripture around to produce
Christian suicide bombers...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Jihad: Could There Be a Christian Bin Laden?
Jonny Scaramanga
Jun 20, 2012
I recently made the controversial claim that I could have been a suicide
bomber: https://tinyurl.com/y78pe4kp
I claimed that my faith was so devout, and my ability for critical thought
so crippled, that if someone had shown me an interpretation of Scripture
that made it seem like God's will, I would have killed for the faith. And I
was depressed enough to kill myself, because fundamentalism doesn't offer
any real answers.
Of course, Christians will deny a Biblical basis for such actions is
possible. But Islamic scholars claim such a reading of the Koran is equally
unsustainable, yet suicide bombers exist, and only preposterously
politically-correct liberal commentators deny that faith is a motivating
factor. So today I'll show that, in principle, there's no reason why a
Christian suicide bomber couldn't arise. Here's what their propaganda
A dead, bearded, Middle Eastern man. Do not confuse with Jesus.
Jesus has called us to bring the world to Him. But today, we have let the
godless throw Him out. God is blasphemed on television every day. A
holocaust of God's children sees millions of babies murdered in abortion
clinics across the world. Muslims, the followers of the devil, immigrate to
our country every day and open Mosques in rejection of the One True Lord.
They are accorded respect, while Christianity is marginalized and prayer to
God in council meetings is banned. Homosexuals are accorded respect by the
established church, when God told us they would not inherit his kingdom (1
Corinthians 6:9). We see our God mocked and yet we stand by and do nothing.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace,
but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and
the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother
in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he
that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that
taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that
findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake
shall find it.
Matthew 10:34-39, see also Luke 12:51-53
We have ignored God's Word and become unequally yoked with unbelievers (2
Corinthians 6:14), allowing Godless men to run our country. We have become
friends of the world, and God has removed His hand of protection.
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the
world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world
is the enemy of God.
James 4:4
The results of this are plain to see. Our country has been hit by terrorist
attacks and an economic recession as the blessing of God is taken from us.
It is time to attack, just as God commanded His children to destroy the
Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amonites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt
smite
them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor
shew mercy unto them.
Deuteronomy 7:2
We must not fail in this mission. God commands us to put to death
blasphemers, those who ignore the Sabbath, homosexuals, psychics, and
children who refuse to obey the LORD's commands through their parents.
Today, we let disobedient children run riot, when Jesus Himself told us
disobedient children must die. And the LORD Jesus specifically told us we
must keep the commands of the Law.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever
therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men
so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever
shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven.
Matthew 5:18-19
In the Book of Revelation, Jesus tells the church at Thyatira that he has "a
few things against" the church, because they it tolerates fornication. Let
us not be like them, for Jesus tells us He will give us according to our
works. We must fulfil the words of God's prophetic book, and kill the
fornicating children of Jezebel.
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest
that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to
seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto
idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented
not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with
her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will
kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that am he
which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you
according to your works.
Revelation 2:20-23
So brothers, let us unleash the promised vengeance of the LORD, knowing the
glory of eternal life we will receive as God's reward.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the
ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much
fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in
this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
John 12:24-25
What I Am Not Saying
I am not saying that this is a coherent reading of the Bible, or that this
is what Christians believe. I am not pretending that a competent theologian
(or just someone who's read the Bible) could not thoroughly rebut this
argument.
What I Am Saying
1) Christians who cherry pick violent verses from the Koran as an attack on
Muslims are being hypocritical.
2) If you claim, as fundamentalists do, that the Bible is 100% consistent,
equally and in all parts the Word of God, and intended to be taken
literally, there is no logical way around this argument.
3) Fundamentalism offers no bulwark against this kind of thing happening,
because it disables the one weapon we have against it: logical reasoning.
4) Because fundamentalism teaches that all Scripture is equal, without
error, and without contradiction, a credulous fundamentalist could fall for
this. Someone making the argument above would have to explain away a few
well-known verses about love (etc.), but this could be done by saying that
those who have repeatedly rejected God do not deserve this love.
Is This Likely?
It's not as unlikely as apologists want to think. Alice Miller has argued
very strongly that authoritarian parenting and strict corporal punishment
helped to form Adolf Hitler's character. Professor David Berliner further
argues that this parenting style is remarkably similar to that advocated by
Christian fundamentalists in their books on child-rearing.
There is already evidence in America that fundamentalists see themselves as
a persecuted minority. I often discuss with Adam Laats, who takes a much
more generous attitude to the Christian Right than me, the way
fundamentalist America views itself as marginalized. If they also suffer in
an economic depression and view atheists or other religions as receiving
preferential treatment (regardless of the accuracy of that perception), a
fundamentalist Christian terrorist is not beyond the realms of imagination.
Arguably, instances of Christian terrorism are already occurring. The Army
of God explicitly uses the Bible to support bombing abortion clinics and
murdering abortionists at their website. Of course, evangelicals will
distance themselves from this, saying these people "aren't true Christians."
But that defense doesn't work. If you insist that all Scripture is equally
the Word of God, and that the Bible is 100% consistent, then you cannot
logically denounce any argument supported by Bible verses. Furthermore, the
reading of Scripture I've used above does not contradict any of the core
tenets of conservative Christian faith.
As I already said, I was a devout, Bible-believing, conservative,
fundamentalist Christian and I'm sure that, aged 14, if a charismatic youth
leader had tried to persuade me of this, I could have gone for it. And it
would have been the belief itself that motivated me primarily.
I am using this extreme example to make a more important point: If you truly
believe something, you will act on it. Faith can make good people do evil
things. This is why fundamentalism must be fought.
https://tinyurl.com/ya2s33oy

White Christian Fundamentalists scare me as much as radical muslims.

omega

Byker

2017-12-02 17:35:25 UTC

Post by Omega
White Christian Fundamentalists scare me as much as radical muslims.

It's astounding how much Far-Right propaganda will be accepted by the the
general population if only the outright race hate and anti-Semitism are
removed. You can hear 99% of the same message 24/7 on Trinity Broadcasting,
which is watched by millions of people who would be shocked to be called
"bigots." Tune in your living room idiot box to TBN sometime. Chances are
what you'll hear, in addition to the Gospel, will be thinly disguised
propaganda pitches from Right-Wing political causes. In a nutshell, what
you'll hear from John Hagee and the rest of the TV preachers is something
that is all too familiar to any student of history:

-- "Our government is corrupt."

-- "Our political leaders are sexually corrupt."

-- "You are being cheated."

-- "You deserve better."

-- "We must make our nation great again."

-- "Sinister forces have infiltrated our government and are manipulating it
behind the scenes."

-- "If the radical solutions we propose are not instituted very soon, doom
is imminent."

-- "Our country is being polluted by the influx of inferior peoples."

Sound familiar? It ought to be if you studied the lives of dictators,
because Hitler, Lenin, Castro, Mao, and the Ayatollah Khomeini all harangued
audiences with these statements in their rise to power. Chicago Tribune
reporter James Coates, whose book "Armed and Dangerous" turns up as a source
in nearly every book on the Far Right published since 1987, points out the
similarities between the Religious Right and the Radical Right, noting that,
minus the outright race hate and anti-Semitism, the messages are virtually
identical. Millions of people watch TBN daily, and after being exposed to
these messages for decades, in a time of crisis or national emergency, it
will be a very small step indeed from the messages of Pat Robertson or Joel
Osteen to those of David Duke and Richard Spencer...

pensive hamster

2017-12-02 18:16:02 UTC

Post by Omega
White Christian Fundamentalists scare me as much as radical muslims.

It's astounding how much Far-Right propaganda will be accepted by the the
general population if only the outright race hate and anti-Semitism are
removed. You can hear 99% of the same message 24/7 on Trinity Broadcasting,
which is watched by millions of people who would be shocked to be called
"bigots." Tune in your living room idiot box to TBN sometime. Chances are
what you'll hear, in addition to the Gospel, will be thinly disguised
propaganda pitches from Right-Wing political causes. In a nutshell, what
you'll hear from John Hagee and the rest of the TV preachers is something
-- "Our government is corrupt."
-- "Our political leaders are sexually corrupt."
-- "You are being cheated."
-- "You deserve better."
-- "We must make our nation great again."
-- "Sinister forces have infiltrated our government and are manipulating it
behind the scenes."
-- "If the radical solutions we propose are not instituted very soon, doom
is imminent."
-- "Our country is being polluted by the influx of inferior peoples."
Sound familiar? It ought to be if you studied the lives of dictators,
because Hitler, Lenin, Castro, Mao, and the Ayatollah Khomeini all harangued
audiences with these statements in their rise to power. Chicago Tribune
reporter James Coates, whose book "Armed and Dangerous" turns up as a source
in nearly every book on the Far Right published since 1987, points out the
similarities between the Religious Right and the Radical Right, noting that,
minus the outright race hate and anti-Semitism, the messages are virtually
identical. Millions of people watch TBN daily, and after being exposed to
these messages for decades, in a time of crisis or national emergency, it
will be a very small step indeed from the messages of Pat Robertson or Joel
Osteen to those of David Duke and Richard Spencer...

"Why of course the people don't want war. ... That is understood.
But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the
policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament,
or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All
you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce
the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in any country."

~ Hermann Goerring, at the Neuremburg trials, 1946

Libs R Pervs

2017-12-03 18:27:01 UTC

Post by Omega
White Christian Fundamentalists scare me as much as radical muslims.
omega

Then you're a sickening apologist for Jihad, you worthless extermibale
scumbag.

Libs R Pervs

2017-12-01 21:34:01 UTC

Post by Omega
Never heard of Pew Research

http://www.pewresearch.org
Have you heard that Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live
peacefully and only a "tiny minority of extremists" practice violence?

Have you heard that Christianity is a peaceful religion because most
Christians live peacefully?

Yes...yes they DO!

Post by finally ditched mimo
After all, no wars have ever been started or perpetuated by Christians,

For purely religious purposes?

I think we know how long ago THAT's been.

Post by finally ditched mimo
and no Christian would ever kill anyone.

By beheading them?

Not as a systemic punishment, no.

Post by finally ditched mimo
So there...

So....FUCK YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL!

You radical Islime apologist scum.

finally ditched mimo

2017-12-02 08:33:52 UTC

Post by Omega
Never heard of Pew Research

http://www.pewresearch.org
Have you heard that Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live
peacefully and only a "tiny minority of extremists" practice violence?

Have you heard that Christianity is a peaceful religion because most
Christians live peacefully?

Yes...yes they DO!

Post by finally ditched mimo
After all, no wars have ever been started or perpetuated by Christians,

For purely religious purposes?
I think we know how long ago THAT's been.

Try a couple of decades ago between Protestants and Catholics.

Of course, in order to protect the charade in which you believe, that could
never be termed a war.

That was just a minor trouble. Yeah right - dream on.

Post by finally ditched mimo
and no Christian would ever kill anyone.

By beheading them?

Christians have guns. Christians have drones. Christians drop bombs from
35000ft. Christians have nuclear weapons. They don’t need beheadings.

Post by Libs R Pervs
Not as a systemic punishment, no.

Post by finally ditched mimo
So there...

So....FUCK YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL!
You radical Islime apologist scum.

I’m an apologist for no one; but you are obviously in serious denial.

Maybe you could do some sensible reading and find out the percentage of
Muslims and then the percentage of Christians who live peacefully, and
discover whether one religion has a significantly higher figure than the
other; instead of simply guessing and then shouting your gob off when you
can’t force everyone to agree with you.

Libs R Pervs

2017-12-03 18:26:14 UTC

Post by Omega
Never heard of Pew Research

http://www.pewresearch.org
Have you heard that Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live
peacefully and only a "tiny minority of extremists" practice violence?

Have you heard that Christianity is a peaceful religion because most
Christians live peacefully?

Yes...yes they DO!

Post by finally ditched mimo
After all, no wars have ever been started or perpetuated by Christians,

For purely religious purposes?
I think we know how long ago THAT's been.

Try a couple of decades ago between Protestants and Catholics.

That wasn't a 'war", it was an internecine squabble.

Post by finally ditched mimo
Of course, in order to protect the charade in which you believe, that could
never be termed a war.

Only by a hyperbolic MORON, true.

Post by finally ditched mimo
That was just a minor trouble. Yeah right - dream on.

Did it spread to some other continent, istmus, island...anywhere?

Nuff said.

Post by finally ditched mimo
and no Christian would ever kill anyone.

By beheading them?

Christians have guns.

So do Muzzies.

Post by finally ditched mimo
Christians have drones.

So do Muzzies.

Post by finally ditched mimo
Christians drop bombs from
35000ft.

To END conflicts, yes.

Post by finally ditched mimo
Christians have nuclear weapons.

Used HOW many times?

Oh yeah...that...

Post by finally ditched mimo
They don’t need beheadings.

Nor do they embrace and venerate them as scripturally called for and
justified, you scumeating little shitbug.