Jump to content

Highgate

Member
  • Content Count

    1,368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Highgate

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,438 profile views
  1. What Boris has been doing all along is perfectly logical if his objective is simply to become leader of the Conservatives and PM. It seems likely that the future of the UK and that of its citizens is of secondary importance to him. Looked at from that perspective, at least the motive behind why he says the things he says starts to make sense, if not the arguments themselves. You've got to say, it's been working very well for him so far. Objective all but achieved.
  2. August 5th..opening game of the season; Huddersfield vs Steven Gerrard's Derby County How often is a football club allowed to change it's name?
  3. I agree...but also preferably one that likes his team to play in a way not too dissimilar to FL's team. Those two criteria are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.
  4. We've got to stop changing style dramatically every time we change a manager....that's a large part of the reason we are still in the Championship.. McClaren - Clement - Wassall - Pearson - McClaren 2 - Rowett - Lampard.... and now 'Substance' again ? It's never worked before. I hope MM has finally learned his lesson in that regard.
  5. It's a bit of a crisis for democracy really, when you think about it. The notion that the majority of elected parliamentarians in the UK (or many other democratic countries) would put their country's interest first, before thinking about themselves or their party, sounds so naive now that's it's laughable. Any yet, fundamentally, that's how elected parliaments should actually work.
  6. Not an easy question to answer. The first when the original was held, the second when the final shape of Brexit is known, ie whether it's a no deal or whatever. That's one option, not that it would be without it's problems. Potentially a pro-remain parliament could negotiate a bad deal in the hope it would be rejected in the second referendum. So that system would require the electorate to have faith in the integrity of their elected representatives.......so that's a potential stumbling block! Still it would avoid the single referendum flaw of the helplessly uninformed electorate.
  7. It's a question of informing the public as much as you can. When the original referendum was held, nothing at all was known about Brexit. Whereas holding a referendum after a withdrawal deal and subsequent trade arrangements were in place/ or alternatively the stark reality of a no deal, would at least give the electorate the opportunity of making an informed choice. I agree with you up to a point, Brexit's effect will only be fully known after living with them for a while...but at least with treaties such as the Maastricht Treaty or the Nice Treaty, parliaments ratified them, or electorates voted for them after the Treaties had been negotiated, not before. There is a good reason for this and it seems almost ridiculous to point it out. The consequences of having a single referendum on whether to accept or reject an amorphous concept is plain to see for anyone who has been paying attention to politics in the UK for the last couple of years.
  8. Fair enough, but I can't see a lot of Brexiteers balking at the prospect. For me the notion of holding a single binding referendum before it was apparent what Brexit actually meant was a ludicrous idea. That's not how referendums are supposed to work. The choices are meant to be clear-cut and clearly understood, so citizens can make an informed choice about their futures.
  9. What's an acceptable timeline for another referendum? 5 years from now, 5 years from the previous one? Just for the record.
  10. I suppose global geopolitics have to be squeezed in here next to Boris. What about US and Iran? What's going on? Will John Bolton finally get the war he has been dreaming about for decades ?
  11. British government files relating to those bombings remain 'classified' despite repeated requests from the Irish government and from the families of the victims, for the relevant documents to be opened and independently examined.
  12. I'd have no desire whatsoever to defend Adams, just glad that the decent pragmatic people, as you put it, managed to persuade him that peaceful methods were more conducive to his ultimate political aim than continuing the violence. I'd credit David Trimble too, for showing the flexibility and a willingness to compromise that Northern Ireland isn't exactly famous for. I can't comment on the motivations of the various British politicians who met Adams, I simply don't know what they were.
  13. I think that's true of Rowett's play-off season as well. Particularly after the defeat at Burton with only a few games to go. The identification of Hughes as surplus to requirements for a promotion chasing club, the dreadful mind-numbing football and his orchestration of the pathetic second leg surrender against Fulham will always be Rowett's legacy at Derby for me. It is strange though, that two different managers with quite different sets of players, with very different tactics both finished the season in 6th with just one point separating them.
  14. The documentary Rory Stewart presented about Afghanistan was quite good...the Great Game I think it was called. Rory came across as intelligent and thoughtful in that. One wonders how he ended up being a Tory.. 🤣.
  15. 'Brutal history on both sides', while true, doesn't quite give the full picture of the situation in Northern Ireland. It should be remembered that historically NI was a state that clearly discriminated against its Nationalist citizens since its foundation in the 1920s. 'A cold house for Catholics' as the Ulster Unionist David Trimble admitted in 1990s. Hence the Northern Ireland civil rights movement in the 1960s, which resulted in a violent government response and a violent Loyalist backlash (when some reforms were announced). From the somewhat understandable largely defensive Republican violence of the 1960s the Provisional IRA emerged, and they took a completely different approach. Targeting the British state in it's entirety, including innocent civilians (and I would add innocent soldiers and policemen - who were just doing their jobs), their actions were despicable, evil and unforgivable. Their methods simply cannot be defended by any reasonable person. I'm sure we agree entirely on that. However, I would argue that Northern Ireland was in fact the Right Place and the Right Time for some sort of response against the injustices the Nationalist community had suffered in Northern Ireland. A peaceful response (like the Civil Rights movement had been - in which John Hume was a prominent figure incidentally) was timely and entirely justified in my view. I'm quite ignorant of Corbyn's contact with Republicans or his motivations to be honest, but I can say that the British government was frequently in secret contact with the IRA as well as having extensive contact with Loyalist paramilitary groups.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.