I seems to me that the Charlie Hebdo affair is further evidence that Islam is demanding that even non believers in a secular society follow their dogma.
Freedom of speech debates are in fact a red herring, the radicals complaint is about disrespect for their religion, we cannot have both a secular society and laws that force us to obey religious strictures. It is not actually a matter of free speech but freedom from being forced to obey the rules of their religion, in this case at the point of an AK47.
I do not care that Muslims might be insulted because I do not respect their god and I do not want to be forced to do so because they claim they are insulted by my lack of respect, that is their problem.
For World Debating Champions (my arse)
this idea is appalling, you totally miss the point if you believe people are moving to UKIP because they are confused about UKIP and what it stands for.
Your suggestion is that all you have to do is shine a light on what you think is the real UKIP and voters will come streaming back to the old parties. Even if you are right about UKIP and that is debatable, the point about UKIP is not UKIP, it is the old parties distain for their own voters.
You have had years to put you own house in order and have failed to do so now you are going to pay the price. Calling UKIP names is not going to change the fact that people are completely fed up with the old parties and it is your own faults.
Just imagine what sort of utopia we’d live in if Thomas Edison hadn’t wasted so much time inventing the lightbulb but had directed his efforts instead into writing a good speech on how he intended to invent the lightbulb, John Logie Baird hadn’t gone and invented the television but had written a brilliant speech about how he intended to invent the TV – this exciting new world where saying words simply makes them come true means drug companies can stop wasting billions on research and development and instead focus efforts on writing speeches about how they intend to develop new drugs – the potential is endless!!
We all know Cameron’s referendum will be loaded against us, that we should vote conservative with the aim of helping Cameron keep his job and then to use his position to poison the referendum is the point of disagreement.
The argument that UKIP should accept Cameron’s referendum because they have been demanding one, ignores the fact that UKIP demand a Free and Fair Referendum Cameron is not offering anything like that.
Your very long post is an argument about how you think we can try to negate the almost total opposition to leaving, much of which would disappear, if we had a government that wanted us out instead of one determined to keep us in.
So what’s at stake, 4/5 years of a minority Labour government against loosing the referendum and ensuring this country is never free from the EU. You might feel confident that Flexcit will answer all the problems and slay the dragons but you are gambling with my country, sorry you do not convince me to fold a winning hand, when you cannot even be certain that your arguments will even be heard.
Just because Cameron has been forced to offer a poisoned chalice I see absolutely no reason why we should drink from it, especially when we are on the verge of destroying him and his modernisers.
Many commentators are worrying about the result and not the cause, UKIPs rise is caused by the mainstream parties, it is they who have moved away from their core vote. The result is the rise of UKIP, thus by trying to find out what it is about UKIP that entices people to vote for them, (as if a little bit of re-jigging here or there will bring them back to the fold) is to totally miss the point, UKIP voters know they are not wanted in the main parties.
The Tories in particular have made is quite clear there is no place for either traditional Tory values or voters in the modern party. Labour are attempting to break away from control of the unions, as both parties claim they are inhabiting some mythical centre ground, but they both stand for the same cooperate style of management.
This is why the Tories will find their “vote UKIP and get Miliband” slogan has no resonance with those likely to vote UKIP, they see no difference between either party. The list of areas that are removed from political debate and control by voting is growing almost daily, from the green agenda to HR2, from immigration to Re-nationalisation of our utilities, we the voters are being denied the opportunity to voice our opinions in a manner that has any affect on the way we are governed. We are no longer offered debate on these issues but bombarded with false proof that something or other is the right thing to do and anyone who does not agree in some way deficient.
As someone on Thursday night said, the main parties say they are listening, well it is time they started hearing.
Cameron is loosing his own MPs because they have become convinced that he is not serious about the referendum.
Sorry, I am not going to vote for a party whose leader promises to call a referendum, who will then do everything possible to make certain we stay in the EU. I do not understand why anybody who wants to leave the EU would.
Why is the EU rag all over the Ryder Cup the EU is a political construct, it is not Europe.
Regionalism marches under the banner of democracy, bringing power closer to the people sounds good, but Regionalism as it is being proposed is a vehicle for centralisation at a supranational level because it has been imposed from above and by passes the nation state. If the regions were not top down we would not at this stage have clearly marked areas on the map for regions, or already defined regional parliament nuclei, they would grow organically from the bottom up. If it were not supranational there would be no need for such thing as the EU Committee of the Regions.
Both regionalism and supranationalism attack the parliamentary nucleus of the nation-state and both share the same goal. That goal is to place power beyond the effective reach of people who oppose. Democracy instead of flowing upwards from the people becomes a sleight-of-hand for power flowing downwards, it becomes – People-like-us-Power – We the people are only allowed to agree with those things desired by them at the centre.
For instance (ONLY) the Greens say the imperative is to build a citizen-centred democracy throughout Britain, my that sounds good, a citizen-centred democracy! But when you look at their position they actually want to change the constitution in a way that would prevent us from making choices that do not correspond to the Green Agenda. I do not here attack the Green Agenda as a political movement or creed, but changing our Bill of Rights and Constitution to limit our democratic choice is not democratic. Nether are the machinations of the UK wide political parties they all about political parties controlling power.
With reference to the suggestion of regionalisation, on first sight it might seem to be a reasonable answer to the problems created by the Scottish referendum and the offer of greater power for the Scottish parliament.
Certainly the leader of the LibDems is pushing that line, but if we look at his history we will see that he is sold on the idea of the EU.
I personally do not see going down the road mapped out by the EU is the answer to a problem created by the EU, unless we all first recognise and then agree that we want to destroy our historic nations and exchange our allegiance to the EU.
We need to choose where we want to be eventually before going any further in a particular irreversible direction. If we are agreed that we want to be a residents in an EU region as part of a United States of Europe, then by all means go for regionalisation.
But we must never loose sight of the battle for power between the various parts of the EU, as it is being created. Whilst the EU it attempting to weaken the historic nations, they in turn are trying to hold onto their power base as the final authority empowered and supported by the citizen.
We have just witnessed the effects of EU interference internally, by giving parts of the nation greater autonomy, instead of holding a nation together is actually a force of division. Imagine for one moment England divided into nine separate political units all vying for money and more powers from a top down final authority, having already broken the UK, we would then have no alternative but to become part of a greater EU.
So please let us first, as a people, decide if that is what we want and where we want to be before taking any further steps in that direction.
Mike Robinson in the UK Column discusses human rights and suggests that Cameron is trying to throw out our Bill of Rights 1689 which is based on Common Law and recognises our inalienable rights and a presumption of liberty and replace it with EU based rights which start from the premise that humans have no rights other than those granted by our leaders. He repeats: the basis of (EU) human rights law is that humans have no rights except those the political elite decide to grace us with.
Some like to argue that in the end there is no practical difference between the two concepts, however they could not be more wrong because that which a political elite can grant it can also remove.
In fact if we look at the EU Charta of Fundamental Rights we see in Article 52 that the EU even makes provision for doing just that.
Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
How can if be a basic human right of it can be removed at the whim of a political leader for the benefit of the political establishment.