What comment was this?
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
What comment was this?
Really hope they vote against the strikes, but I highly doubt that'll happen. Instead we'll just become yet another country who kill more civilians than terrorists.
Essentially branding Corbyn and everyone who disagrees with bombing as a 'terrorist-sympathiser'
“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,”
Wish they'd banish these idiots from the house for such public school boy behaviour.
It's a pisstake. If they're not interested in listening to others they should be kicked out for the day.
quite a rush of people going for lunch... looks a bit poor
Probably helps that it's lunch but Robertson, SNP, is putting in a very good performance in the house here.
Shame no one will see it on the news tonight
Shame no one will see it on the news tonight
Dr Liam Fox is speaking and making a good fist of it as well...
Actually had to turn off at that point myself because he wasn't going anywhere
what time is the voting at??
Edit: got it...22:00.
Edit: got it...22:00.
Probably be after 10:30pm, long debate.
Yvette Cooper looks like she's dressed for a summer garden party.
Alan Johnson as awesome as ever, Yvette with a strong speech too.
Camerons name calling was a disgrace.
Beckett too. Her question as to how we would feel if we asked France for help and they did nothing quite struck home for me. Later she typically gave credit to someone else for the idea too.
All in all, the usual baying tories aside, I think the debate has been a credit to the British parliament so far, and it's come close to changing my mind, with time yet.
Missed hers unfortunately but yes heard it was also very good, and Kaufman's on the anti-intervention side of the debate too. Irritated that I also just missed Jarvis.
Which way are you travelling, from pro- to anti-?
The strongest argument for the strikes is that the Iraq-Syria border has become complete arbitrary. But that of course assumes we should be launching strikes in Iraq.
The weakest are the notion that we have magically accurate weapons and that the strikes will make us safer.
The argument that France has asked us to help is a strong emotional argument, but clearly we shouldn't do something just because an ally has asked us
The weakest are the notion that we have magically accurate weapons and that the strikes will make us safer.
The argument that France has asked us to help is a strong emotional argument, but clearly we shouldn't do something just because an ally has asked us
Beckett said:
That kind of emotive language is disingenuous and should have little place in this kind of debate; it's emotional, knowing blackmail. Besides, where was France when the US wanted their help in Iraq after America's tragedy?
I'd hope at the very least France would ask us to make a strong case for why they should help.
If not, lets just go back to the Alliance system of pre-world War Europe.
There was plenty of feeling that the Iraq war wasn't particularly related to 9/11. Afghanistan clearly was, however, and French ground forces were involved.
Out of interest are they still called freedom fries?
There's two lines of argument: 1. We should support our allies in the aftermath of an atrocity. In that sense France did in Afghanistan.
2. We should stand with our allies when they ask for help. In that sense France actively pursued a veto against the Iraq conflict, where the US and UK would clearly have wanted their support.
Edit: SteveJ who you were responding to was merging both
Don't know who that was but standing with our allies by placing the blame of Sykes-Picot entirely on the French
I'd say the general argument lies around there being a just cause. Wasn't general agreement on that in Iraq, unanimous agreement (internationally) here.
They've been called French fries (again) since 2006, according to Wiki.
Andy Burnham voting against.
Coopers speech seemed to be summed up by "I don't think the government's plan is very good, I haven't received the assurances that I was looking for from Cameron, but I'm going to vote with him anyway because of France.
Assisting France and being part of the coalition is the best argument I've heard for taking action now but we shouldn't do it if we think the plan is flawed and if there's one thing that almost everyone seems to be able to agree on, it's that the current plan vote is being voted on is fundamentally flawed.
Assisting France and being part of the coalition is the best argument I've heard for taking action now but we shouldn't do it if we think the plan is flawed and if there's one thing that almost everyone seems to be able to agree on, it's that the current plan vote is being voted on is fundamentally flawed.
Camerons only argument is that we can't be seen letting others fight our battle.
Moving towards pro, but still undecided. Cameron has handled it badly and chooses the weakest arguments to stress, but some others have spoken well.
History is there to learn from, although it's hard to keep unbiased with an open mind ( I mean for all of us, not you particularly).
To take one example, if India had stayed united and fought as one then Britain would have been one jewel short in it's crown. It's easy to find examples of disunity leading to loss and disaster, so yes, there is some merit in alliances.
Oh quite, I'm not saying we shouldn't ally with like minded countries. That would be a bit weird, I'm just saying that the idea we should do whatever they ask just because they ask is quite odd.
Last edited:
Yes, I see Ninja, it's a consideration I suppose, just one more in an impossible puzzle.
Good to hear. Changing it from what to what?
Edit - Nevermind, see that you've answered already.
That's pretty much Cooper in a nutshell. She'll appear to be angry and empathetic but her actual stance will be completely immaterial.
The libertarian argues against bombing:
There are of course arguments for the bombing but it saddens me that so many MP's have gone with:
- France have asked us
- ISIS are evil and they must be stopped
- We can't do nothing
Fantastic stuff from Davis, easily the most compelling and articulate point I've heard in this entire debate. Just never thought I'd hear it from a Tory.
Always liked Davis, him and Rory Stewart are two of the only Tory MPs I can say that of
Awkward. Benn gives a rousing speech in favour of bombing, then plonks himself down squished on the front bench.
