Because they took up arms against civillians, because the government policy was of consent, because people like ghandi and martin luther king sure shown there was another way and they could have tried to convince their people of it. (as an aside I find republicanism to be a remarkable example of pathological victimhood) I'm not shying away. I have stated my opinion of the single one so far, but we're having a meta argument again. Did he attend a wolfe tone society dinner commemorating dead IRA terrorists? Did he make the statement already outlined? Then it is a matter of narrative and which is more likely and that also would have to be assessed in the rest of the context. Say after the formation of the EU in 1995 a small minority of brexiteers started an indiscriminate bombing campaign with a minority political wing and minority support for leaving were often met by farage, and farage argued their case and championed their causes against the will of the UK, i think you'd have a lot more to say about him being PM. I stated what the victory conditions were for the IRA/sinn fein, I stated that on 2 occasions previously quoted putting his name to a bill that would give that victory to a separatist group by ending the jurisdiction of the UK over northern ireland, without the consent of the governed. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...nd-termination-of#S6CV0069P0_19841205_HOC_421 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...nd-termination-of#S6CV0235P0_19940120_HOC_222 Because he was happy to have a united ireland without the consent of the N.Irish, If NI leaves without consent of their people then that is not upholding self determination. No one would share a platform with britain first if they could help it the analogy doesn't hold. Ghandi foundation is just appeal to authority not evidence of his peace efforts. Which politicians on the unionist side, your statements need evidence too. I answered the question, I think it is wrong for him to have paid tribute specifically to 8 terrorists. I think the contemporary report of his statement at the event compounds that. My issue isn't terrorist sympathies but a pattern of behaviour that indicates he is a seditious fifth columnist that can not be trusted to high office and there are few politicians I accuse of that, and all of them are his allies (McDonnell, Abbott and Milne). I am aware of the early day motion, and I have first a point the language was politically neutral, it referred to the incident and not the perpetrator and framed the rest in neutral language. My question is how many other early day motions were there such as these, did he sign any others, did they specifically condemn the IRA or loyalist groups?
Look at what the other side does like for example paying a known UDA dude a £35k salary from taxpayer money... http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/s...-stored-by-belfast-city-council-35894842.html So even if Crobyn went as far putting IRA members on his payroll, he would not stick out, but rather he would fit right in with what politicians already do. (And no, that of course doesn't make it right, just trying to highlight that the issue is far less black and white). Unlike other countries the UK has an insurance policy against nutjobs from either side implementing anything too absurd, the unelected (and as such mostly immune to populism) House of Lords.
If McGuinness and Paisley could move on and become unlikely friends I think it would be prudent for others to do so.
Because you can make reasonable assumptions based on an understanding of things like income and substitution effects or the composition of costs for firms, hence why I could tell you that prices don't rise 15% if the price of foreign currency rises by 15% and that the effect of that is temporary rather than sustained inflation. There are boundaries to the effects of these things but they are so wide as to be useless to tell the government anything. By not that bad the UK could fall into a small recession at worst with a decent recovery as production is reallocated to the new reality through the market, it could be that growth falls temporarily or we pursue unilateral no tariffs and hold growth steady or better if some theories hold. (this being the WTO no deal brexit) The problem here is the results a wide and varied and an economic model relying on assumptions will create a forecast that has more chance of being very wrong than correct and even then depends on what we do in such a situation with monetary policy, our new free reign on trade policy, tariffs, the path of fiscal policy, hell even world growth picks up heavily and carries us along in the maelstrom period. All I can say is growth in such a situation wouldn't go over 2.5% and wouldn't fall under -2-2.5% with a reasonable recovery, without compounding external factors. What I assume you think is that we see a financial crisis style situation or even great depression style, the effects will be on the margins of our trade with the EU not over everything. Also there is the reality of currency adjustment which has already priced in the barriers we could face and being that we are leaving alone it is an asymmetric shock (i.e. mostly affecting us) and a currency adjustment will smooth that to 1:1 with the euro. The inflation is dealt with by not having the agricultural tarriffs and clothing tariffs in the schedule, which would eliminate most of the shock (felt by the poor especially) entirely as those goods are necessities. I am likely leaving some things out but there are mechanisms by which this is much less damaging in the worst case than you think. The biggest danger is that our post crisis poor productivity growth catches up with us or the inevitable cyclical recession comes (we are 7 years from the last) and causes an issue of it being mis-attributed to brexit 2. Fox hunting was unnecessary, those people vote tory anyway and we have free votes all the time on these kind of things. It was a boob, I had to explain to three people (women, they actually lost female votes over the campaign)) that even if she got her majority it was a free vote and there isn't likely even a majority in the party to pass it never mind parliament. Framing an improvement to the terms of social care policy in the way they did was a PR disaster. 3. a. it was in their manifesto, but the majority of the unicorn voters were remainers . Hard reality: lib dem, conservative 49.5%, Hard unicorn labour, ukip, green somewhere around 48%. The rest is SNP and others. (even then the lib dems annoyed me, they should have just said "remain no matter what if people vote for our mandate and we hold the balance of power or are in government we have a mandate to reverse the referendum, that is democracy and we don't apologise for it we are the party of remain" instead they went all wishy washy trying to pretend they were respecting the ref result. Clue lib dems if you win an effin mandate through a general election you don't have to pretend anything that is democracy and then you'd have maybe picked up more of those 28% or so of hard remainers/rant) We cannot rule the EU from the inside as it hegemon like germany does because we don't benefit from the innate and inevitable imbalances of being in a currency union where we are the most competitive member with an oversupply of savings as a result. It's pretty hard to beat that leverage, If we were competing at 1:1 with greece, italy from 2002 we'd have a smaller trade deficit and more power in the block. I think that's cynically oversimplifying it a bit and they would have paid with their lives not failing to upgrade an Iphone As do most who would see themselves as self appointed betters. I'm not ignoring you, there's a start. We have objectives, we negotiate to them otherwise we haven't left and are stuck in a limbo of the worst of both worlds, it's not jingoism (unless you mean the red white and blue brexit, yeah I get that) What we do post brexit is constrained by where we are in brexit, we can't announce a trade deal formally, we've got to settle issues (more important IMO and barneir's) before we move to trade issues with the EU. (I don't know about hate speeches) and anything they say get's a "yeah right" from the hard remain side. If you watch the BBC/ITV/Sky (chanel 4 news is just how it is) coverage that has been complained about and there is a point, not on the scrutiny of brexit itself, but on the framing of any good news as despite the fact rather than "this happened" or to jump on brexit as causal of all bad news. (as I said If I want the bad news and brexit news I search brexit, If I want the good news I search despite brexit). It's the omissions, it's the question times with 1 brexiter and 3 (even 4) lefties to righties where luckily rees-mogg and davis can handle 4 opponents well (if they are on).
I think they're freaking out at the moment because they are a hair's breadth away from comrade corbyn and marxist mcdonnell in no. 10 and 11, because of a campaign was so bad it ruined a lead on the local elections would have a 60-100 seat majority. In terms of the tories who have accepted leaving in parliament it seems mostly clear they know what they have to implement to meet the conditions of the ref. The panic seems something much more projected upon, maybe reality meets somewhere between my calm and your panic. You sound like you're in the depression stage . No there are plenty of economic decisions we make, many of which I know you like, that we can't predict accurately the effects of or even historically separate out after the fact. We wouldn't do anything beneficial if we ran a model on it and we'd do a lot of thing catastrophic if we did to. You can design 50, 60, 70 models all with different assumptions all possibly true, for all we know, and 1 of them is roughly right the rest are wildly wrong, we apply it again and it's wrong at a different point.
No, it is harmonisation. The EU operates a mutual recognition system intended to allow products to move unhindered between national markets. So UK agencies still have to cooperate tightly with EU ones. And if their budgets are puny, you're not saving a lot of money there, are you? And you think that Brexit is going to change any of that? So... the UK is not disadvantaged by negotiating with countries that are part of big trading blocs? Is that why all countries seek to be part of one? And being in the Euro is actually good for the economy? So the EU does not have dozens of customs conformity agreements and mutual recognition agreements with those countries? And they are not all trying to consolidate them in FTAs? No country trades purely under WTO anymore. I think you'll find again it's a bit more complicated than that.
1. Yup, that is why the government is flapping about trying to convince itself that nothing will change in terms of trade with the EU. It doesn't seem to share your confidence. 2. If Theresa May had something positive and sensible to say about a post-Brexit Britain, anything at all, don't you think the GE campaign was the time and place to mention it? But no. Only: "If we don't get negotiations with the EU right, it will be an economic disaster". Encouraging (you may want to give Theresa a call and explain to her that it's all going to be fine). The rest was displacement activity: fox hunting, internet control. The only party worse was UKIP: the true original Brexit party (since 1997)™. Surely a party which has been campaigning for Brexit for 20 years has a solid post-Brexit vision, right? A plan, right? Right? No. Its manifesto offered (wait for it... drum roll): the burka ban, and forcibly inspecting school girls' genitals. UKIP, you stay classy. 3. People didn't vote Brexit out of principles. They voted Brexit for unicorns. That's why Vote Leave promised them. But because they were unicorns then dropped them the day after; the Tories ignored them and hoped nobody would notice; and Labour promised them again just to focus everyone's attention on the fact that the Tories didn't. Guess who suddenly got a lot of votes? You're not supposed to rule. You're supposed to cooperate. And the UK had perks even Germany didn't enjoy. Stop blaming the EU for the UK's own economic failures. Nobody buys it when Greece does it. What, like the Vote Leave campaign? I'll be sure to tell my NHS and social care colleagues that their career choice was just motivated by a sense of superiority over their fellow human beings. I think you might be confusing us with politicians, or perhaps you're just revealing something interesting about yourself here.
Some did, some didn't, but as you've been doing since the start you're conflating the two. How about answering the question though, are you saying that people dying for an independent Ireland was a good thing? Is it safe to assume that from you're comment about republicanism being pathological victimhood that you think it's a bad idea? Because if so it would be interesting to hear why you think the idea of a sovereign state where the governance of the country is decided through the election of individuals who represent their citizens. No, you are defiantly shying away from debating a subject you raised, maybe if you didn't want anyone challenging your opinion then you shouldn't have voiced it in a public forum. You can call it a meta argument if you like but it's really not, it's you voicing an opinion in a public forum and when challenged on that opinion refusing to substantiate or elaborate on your claims, in other words you're doing exactly the same thing as the right wing media has been doing, using a poor representation of the facts, AKA a smear campaign of unverifiable rumors and distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies. So despite you saying how you're not shying away you've refused to answer any of the points i raised. You didn't answer why if opposing the Anglo- Irish treaty was such a heinous act then why did Thatcher later admitted that supporting it had been a mistake, as it entrenched division for many years following its implementation? And you've failed to answer if or why you consider people and/or groups supporting the same cause but using different methods should all be condemned by the actions of another. Yes you have but you've failed to address why you're associating the IRA, Sinn Féin, and Corbyn with one another while at the same time disassociating groups and people like the UDA, UVF, UDP, and Theresa May. Tto say the actions of the IRA condemn Sinn Féin and Corbyn purely through the association of sharing the same cause while ignoring the association between someone like Thomas Mair's and UKIP is the height of double standards. Yet again you've not address a single one of the questions i raised, you've not said why guilt by association is enough to condemn certain people or groups but not enough to condemn others, you've failed to answer why wanting a form of government where the people living in that country can exercise self determination is a bad thing, and you've failed to provide evidence that the IRA were becoming more and more compromised by the intelligence services. Yes Corbyn wanted a united Ireland but to suggest that would've been without the consent of the electorate is just being deliberate obtuse, that's like suggesting the SNP would just take Scotland out of the UK or the UK government would take us out of the EU without the consent of the electorate, the electorate would either choose to elect politicians who did or didn't want an united Ireland and then there'd be a referendum on the issue. Yes the Gandhi foundation is an appeal to authority, at least you've admitted that they're more authoritative on the subject than yourself. And no you haven't answered the question relating to him standing for a minutes silence at a Sinn Féin meeting being held in London as you've not said why you think it was wrong for him to do what he did. The thing is if you voice such a conspiracy theory in a public forum then it's only natural that someone is going to challenge your opinion, and when you can't backup such a claim it comes across as you being brainwashed by the right-wing media and propagating the exact same smear campaign they conduct. As for your remark about the early day motion that's particularly funny, or are you being serious when you pretend not to have knowledge of what incident it refers to. You'd think so wouldn't you, but it seems some people are happy to stir up the sectarian divides and troubles of the past just to gain some political capital.
*warning to some this is more a stream of consciousness,impressions and opinion* I'm not worried about them being on his payroll, (he's already tried that twice in the 80s) he's already got McDonnell and Milne there. It's his judgement, ideology and whether his loyalty is more to his ideology than to the citizens of his country and if he gets elected (in a hard left majority and corbyn's conscience get's in the way then he'll be replaced. I wonder about our courts and lords stopping a would be benevolent dictator (they all think they are you know). I'm sure then not so sure, much that shouldn't have passed from that school of throught (post modernist, neo marxian) has, also other toolkit of totalitarianism such as DRIPA. Then I think to corbyn and maybe he wont abide what the momentum lot want when he realises, but then he'd be replaced anyway and even then he reminds me of a sort of high sparrow figure* from ASoIaF/Got. You can pack the lords, put money bill through, enact statutory instruments. Then there's the influence of the momentum types and that can turn into allegorical brownshirts before you know it. *Take his first instinct in response to grenfell is to appropriate people's property. Which any idiot who's paid attention every now and put an hours thought into it would realise it is neither practical, necessary or desirable even from a practical standpoint. It can only be a softening to the acceptance of arbitrarily seizing property on a pretext of a variant of "property is theft, success is oppression", it's one of the early policies they pursue is to collectivise property from the individual to the state.
Yeah, you sound really calm at the possibility of Labour in government. Shall we say, more accurately, that perhaps reality will meet somewhere between my panic and your panic?
The context of people dying was bombs on the streets, constant alertness, civilian targeting and an undemocratic cause against the will of the nation of NI. So in that context in northern ireland through 60s to mid 90s yes it was wrong and yes the other lot loyalists were wrong too for their activity and if you read some of the stuff on some of the informants the security services don't look too pretty either. You should know and I am sure will take great satisfaction in knowing that northern ireland is the most boring and loathsome political topic for me. What has what thatcher said in with 20/20 hindsight got to do with what corbyn did in the thrust of the moment. I have answered the questions that aren't just leading or loaded, well some of them as well. I'm just not giving you the answer you want. The loyalist groups are at least one step removed from may, corbyn is on first name terms. Thomas mair had nothing to do with UKIP and a lone nutter with no name doesn't compare even if he did. It's threadbare. The IRA are an organised group, with a political wing sinn fein, corbyn knew of associated with, grieved with, took up the cause of and campaigned on behalf of. You are assuming that condemning the IRA excludes the loyalist at whatever cost types, it doesn't. And it's not wanting a form of government it is commemorating those who killed civilians as a matter of course, It's a matter of supporting a groups cause without condemning the group, it's fact that we could have a prime minister that doesn't care about the consent. . There is a political solution, again the historical examples actually worked with MLK and ghandi. (that isn't the authority of those figures BTW but their example in history that worked) On compromised. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...en-worked-for-security-services-28694353.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-intel-boss-blair-airbrushed-northern-ireland-peace-process If I quote it you'll shout contextomy, If I leave the source you'll accuse me of gish gallop because I left you with too much to read and reagardless you'll attack the source rather than the verbatim quotes or the claims made outside of the bias. No he twice introduced a bill that would do just that. We have had a referendum and the scots have had a referendum and the Irish for that matter have had border polls. The SNP begrudgingly accept the result of theirs, we seem to with ours. So we're on the one way street of logical fallacies then, authority doesn't mean they are correct. It's not a conspiracy theory but a questioning of his motivations and suitability for office based on his past associations, causes, his ideology etc. A conspiracy would at least need it to be a plan rather than an inference of bad motives. It has nothing to do with brainwashed by the right wing media, it has exactly to do with me making a similar inference to them, because to say it were all peace and love just seems like the most charitable interpretation ever for a politician and it is all okay when it's trump isn't it? 2. I didn't say I don't have knowledge. I said the motion doesn't refer to who perpetrated the attack, I was already aware of the motion, and it remains neutral throughout and the questions still stand. Is it or is it not legitimate to be worried about someone with such past connections, at best ambiguous statements, questionable loyalties.
I think mine's a be incredibly suspicious of far left identitarian types like (inter)nationalist socialists or theocrats because they basically cause most of the internal repression deaths and always ends with totalitarianism. Yours is because you're worried about a few points of GDP.
If the EU agency budgets were big and suggest they do everything then it's a problem, if they are small and suggest they do little it is a problem, the logic here falls apart because the regulatory body like most EU policies exports the costs. We only have to cooperate for equivalence for the 12% of gdp we export to the EU. If the EEA rules are the same as non EEA it will. If the public opinion wont allow the net figure too high then they'll have to start thinking and if business can't get the quick fix they have to start investing in capital and people for growth. Regardless we might be able to do it without the EU, we'll never with. 1)No trading bloc other than the EU makes members collectively negotiate. 2) No catastrophic: If you've read what i've written on this and also in the past it would be clear that germany's success is not good for europe or the world. The Imbalance between the south and the centre of the eurozone is what will destroy it because it is unsustainable. If its weakest members drop and aren't picked back up then germany's advantage disapears over night and with some major disruption to their economy, without the weaker members the currency can't maintain a low value if it survives and if it falls everyone does. Trade supluses involve someone else having a trade deficit and germany's is larger than china's in £p terms never mind % of GDP terms, it is distorting the whole world economy. It still wouldn't be catastrophic outside of just in time and dover/calais. No one wants that situation in europe, and no one wants the port at the other side clogged up either. I think you'll find you don't have a real answer. You know smaller countries have perfectly fine agreements, you know bilateral agreements are no way near as long as mulitlateral, deep down you know it's not going to be the disaster you hope it will be.
The only party worse was UKIP: the true original Brexit party (since 1997)™. Surely a party which has been campaigning for Brexit for 20 years has a solid post-Brexit vision, right? A plan, right? Right? No. Its manifesto offered (wait for it... drum roll): the burka ban, and forcibly inspecting school girls' genitals. UKIP, you stay classy. [/quote] Only party worse in PR they were hard unicorn side. I think she has this little problem with PR and being a person which she must have set the record for positive to negative image of a leader. A non disaster manifest is easy and a non disaster leader is and not focusing on that leader is and PR can be done better. Ever thought that it was just a bad campaign? You hope that's true but more remainers voted unicorns than brexiters If people knew about economics (pretty well founded economics) people would cut the greeks a little bit of slack because their situation was inevitable and is led by german current account surpluses. If you are the main creditor country by a long way and the currency union has crippled your competitors you are going to have a lot of leverage when they need the money. I'm not blaming the EU for our economic failure, I am blaming the Euro for germany's success and the rest of europe's failure until it collapses and become's everyone's failure. This is incredibly basic optimal currency area stuff, it's not controversial to say in most economic circles because it is driven by things that are mathematical identities. No more like a first year gender studies undergrad. I think someone is trying to collectivise an accusation levelled at an individual. As far as i'm revealing about myself I don't know but I hope I'm not that guy who thinks the electorate are a bit (a lot )too stupid to have a say, or that person who thinks we've already sewn down all the education policy, economics, environmental policy, sociology as if) and we just need our humble intellectual overlords to implement it all on behalf of mankind because we know what the poor and stupid people want. Yeah I hope I'm not that guy....
No, you're panicking at the fantasy of Corbyn being a closet Communist infiltrator on his way to turn Britain into the next Cuba; I'm worried about Brexit based on the reality of sheer rudderless panic and chaos that the Tory party has displayed since June 24th last year, and their failure to produce a single credible argument for Brexit. Their entire argument is based on "the people have overwhelmingly voted for Brexit" (they didn't; but it's a good start in abdicating responsibility for what follows) and "We are for having our cake and eating it (they need us more than we need them)!" (realistic much?) and "We'll have a red white and blue Brexit!" (what?) and the emotive "If you're against this, you're undemocratic and a traitor" (apparently it is unpatriotic now to express worry about the future of your country and want to hold your government to account). Sorry, those are not compelling arguments. That is not a vision, plan or policy. That is manic bluster. For example: the UK has not made any trade deals in 40 years. No help came from the Commonwealth except for one (1) NZ negotiator who taught some DExEU peeps about International Trade Agreements 101 For Beginners. The salary the UK offers is well below market value (it can blow a billion or two on the DUP, apparently, but not pay a decent salary for a good international trade negotiator; priorities I suppose) so good negotiators have walked away from offers. The UK has about 20 trade negotiators working at the EU; not a single one has come over to the UK side. And the UK is now ready to run into a bear hug with a US trade negotiating team, which is one of the strongest and fiercest in the world. Because Trump promised that "he'll do you a good deal". So from where I'm sitting, Brexit really looks and sounds like a ***********. Corbyn is only Fidel Castro in your head. No, I'm just tired of debating this; you can find out for yourself. But to claim I hope this is going to be a disaster is no different than the emotive "you hate Britain" argument. I have EU citizenship and my wife has EU citizenship rights as my spouse no matter what happens so we can leave anytime, but I have family here. Nieces, nephews, and they have children of their own. Their, and a large chunk of our economic prosperity is tied up in that of this country. And the government gives no sense at all of knowing what they are doing, no sense at all that this will all work out. They don't share your casual confidence. They act terrified. That's why I worry. No other reason. Otherwise Brexit wouldn't even be on my radar. No, most Remainers voted strategically against Theresa May's hard Brexit. What's more, a lot of Leavers did too. We'll see who wins the next election. But it's not looking good so far for Brexit or for the Tories. Perhaps their opinion is coloured by the fact that Greece lied about its deficit to get into the Euro. Alrighty then: does the average Joe in the street have the slightest idea about how anything works? Foreign trade - no; banking - no; industry - no; economy - no; immigration - no; the NHS - no; human rights - no; international law - no; the EU - no; the ECHR - no; globalisation- no. Did Vote Leave enlighten them? No. It treated the electorate like idiot children, making unicorn promises it retracted the day after the referendum. Only 16% of the electorate felt informed enough to make a decision on a question which you yourself argue is too hideously complex to foresee the consequences of. And the tabloids, all ran by millionaires with vested interests did their best to misinform and play on people's emotions. So perhaps a large chunk of the electorate would agree with me that: 1. This was all way over their heads; 2. They were lied to; 3. They were manipulated. But the Brexiteers got the answer they wanted (just), so now it's all STFU and if you express any doubts or worries that is unpatriotic and talking the country down. Woe betide someone who says that perhaps this was all a bit invalid, not to mention rigged, and people had no idea what they were voting for, because that is patronising the electorate. And if there is one thing that the Etonian upper-class Jacob Rees-Moggs, Dominic Raabs and Boris Johnsons do, it's respect the common man. Like Mother Theresa runs a campaign on the cult of personality: "Just vote for me and I will make it all better. No, I'm not going to tell you my plan or vision, I'm not going to talk to you, I'm not going to take questions or debate. Just trust me, because mother knows best. Because I understand the poor people Just About Managing". So who is being patronising and contemptuous, really? And since Brexit is basically just a (failed) attempt at resolving an internal party dispute, and Theresa May not so long ago strongly argued for staying in the EU, who cares about the future of this country really? And of course we know what you think of young people's ability to make an informed political choice. So yeah, you're that guy.
If northern Ireland is the most boring and loathsome political topic for you then why did you enter into a debate about that exact subject, especially when it's clear you don't know what the hell you're talking about. The undemocratic cause you allude to is nothing of the sort, in fact the trouble started because the people of NI had democratically decide to become an independent nation and the British government refused to let 6 counties in the north east go and decided to undemocratically partition Ireland, that's like if Scotland voted for independence and the government passed an act to force the 6 most southern counties to remain under the British governments jurisdiction. You can say it was against the will of the people but every time you do you're portraying a very poor understanding of the subject at hand. Its got everything to do with it, you accuse Corbyn of being a terrorist sympathiser and one of the reasons you gave was because he didn't sign the Anglo-Irish agreement, not because like many people at the time who were warning it would make the situation worse, but because he was sympathising with terrorists. I suspect the only reason you think I'm asking leading or loaded questions and refusing to answer is because its becoming increasingly clear that not only don't you know what you're talking about but also because even people on the international space station can see your double standards. You know what they say about finding yourself in a hole, right? No they're not, our government just used your tax pounds to bribe a loyalist group, Mrs May is probably on first name terms with Arlene and the rest of the DUP, and using your twisted logic that means they're all sympathising with terrorists because the all shared the same cause of keeping NI in the union, but no, instead of turning your ire on our government for using your hard earned money to bribe terrorists sympathisers you prefer to direct it at someone whose not even governing the country. Honestly you double standard are quiet bizarre, you're happy to associate the IRA with Sinn Féin and Corbyn through nothing more than sharing the same cause but when it comes to other people and groups sharing the same cause you say there's no association. Thomas Mair shouted this is for Britain, keep Britain independent and put Britain first but apparently you say that has nothing to do with UKIP who wanted an independent Britain and to put Britain fist, they shared the same cause and using your twisted logic that means the actions of Thomas Mair is enough to condemn UKIP. Again you're not answering the question, you've not said why guilt by association is enough to condemn certain people or groups but not enough to condemn others, you've failed to answer why wanting a form of government where the people living in that country can exercise self determination is a bad thing, and you've failed to provide evidence that the reason the IRA agreed to cease fire was because they were becoming more and more compromised by the intelligence services. And it most certainly is commemorating people who lost their lives for wanting a form of government, a form that would mean they were an independent sovereign nation where the electorate has some form of self determination, i suspect your lack of knowledge on the politics and history of NI is the cause of your misunderstandings. To say he never condemned the groups who resorted to violent direct action is quiet frankly a lie, he condemned violent direct action regardless of who was carrying it out, for myself, and i suspect Corbyn, it's not about the cause, it's about the loss of life and regardless of what cause someone supports violent direct action is wrong, no matter who carries it out, whereas it seems you consider there to be good and bad violent direct action. For you to say we could have a prime minister that doesn't care about the consent of the electorate is particularlly comical when we actually have a prime minister pushing through a hard Brexit without the consent of the people and using our hard earned money to bribe terrorist sympathisers, you're worrying about something that may or may not happen while our current prime minister doesn't give two hoots about the consent of the electorate. And no i won't shout contextomy or accuse you of gish gallop because, unusually for you, you've managed to address the specific point raised, even though the links you posted show your claim that the IRA were becoming more and more compromised by the intelligence services was a half-truth. The first article even says half of all senior IRA members in the Troubles were working for intelligence services, it goes onto to say the same was true of the RUC so it really doesn't support your argument that the IRA agreed to a cease fire because they were becoming more and more compromised as it worked both ways and undoubtedly there was so much misinformation going back and forth that the reliability of any information was treated with skepticism. I'd consider the second article as not much more than an opinion piece, it's the opinions of Lord West and the author without much regard for facts, however regardless of how i feel about the veracity of their claims it still doesn't backup your claim that the only reason the IRA agreed to a cease fire was because they were compromised, sure it may have played a part but seeing as it had probably been going on for years, if not decades before, i can't really see that being a key motivator.
You really need a history lesson, Ireland voted for an independent sovereign nation almost 100 years ago, the British government didn't like that and passed a bill without consulting anyone so they could retain jurisdiction on 6 counties in the NW. If anything Corbyn wanted to put right a undemocratic decision made over 100 years ago, perhaps you'd like to provide details of these two bills Corbyn introduced as he's said on many occasions that NI should have a referendum on the subject of a united Ireland. No it doesn't, it just means they know more about the subject than you do. No it really is a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy theory because when we examine your claims they're full of unverifiable rumors and distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies. They're conspiracy theories because your position on this subject is full of logical fallacies and double standards. They're conspiracy theories because you're basing your claims on the opinions of other people without even knowing what their backgrounds or motivations are. They're conspiracy theories because you actually believe he's inciting or causing people to rebel against the authority of the state, that he's part of a group who are sympathetic to or working for its enemies, it's a conspiracy theory because you honestly sound like some nutter who thinks 9/11 was an inside job. And WTF has Trump got to do with anything, Trump's a dick and gets called out for being one, what relevance that has to do with anything is beyond me. The reason you think the bill remained neutral throughout is because the whole process of negotiating peace seems totally beyond your comprehension, because you seem to think the way to negotiate peace is to take sides. Finally yes it's legitimate to be worried about someone with such past connections whose made what could be seen as ambiguous statements, and if someone wrongheadedly questions their loyalties, however I'd be more worried about our current governments connections, ambiguous statements, and questionable loyalties, they have after all bribed a bunch of terrorist sympathisers to retain their grip on power, suppressed reports into using the electorates money to fund terrorism, pursuing a ideologically driven economic plan despite, by their own admission, it being a failure, and forcing through their vision of leaving the EU despite not a single person giving their consent for it. Honestly you're so busy flinging dead cats on tables that you can't see the heard of elephant looking over your shoulder.
Stepping away from the Corbyn debate for a moment... The Tory infighting over who should be PM seems to be still ongoing: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...former-ministers-andrew-mitchell-grant-shapps
David Davis has found Theresa May's intransigence and unwillingness to compromise a real problem in the EU negotiations, and does not feel like taking the blame for a bad outcome. He may well be motivated to 'take back control'.
