Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
on the basis that...
Refugee crisis. Something on the scale of the Marshall plan required?
- Thread starter teqniq
- Start date
Parliament voted against allowing British troops to join the attack on Syria.
gosub
~#
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
but you don't actually know what they voted on. the relevant section of the government motion which was defeated:
i would expect the government to argue that the involvement of seconded british personnel is not 'direct british involvement' and therefore ok. but i am still confused why you believe it to be illegal, given that to be illegal a law must be broken. i do not know of any law which has been broken, so although this may have been against the will of parliament as expressed two years ago, i am not yet persuaded it is illegal.
I just said what they voted on. What's wrong with you?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
why not read my post you dull cunt?
Because you edited after I replied, as you know. This isn't really the thread to be trying to score such pathetic points on.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
If the government do a U-turn then it will be a huge boon for the campaign to leave the EU and for right of the Conservatives parties. Having been told repeatedly 'there is no money left', and TINA on austerity many people have actually come to believe it. If you add very publicly providing additional funding for refugees that is going to make a lot of those people very, very angry.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you seem quite willing to score pathetic points on all manner of threads so i don't know how you determine this one to be different. but i would be grateful if you could answer the question instead of prevaricating.
What's your question?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
what is the basis for your claim it is illegal: what law has been broken?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I am not so sure. Intra EU migrants are an issue for the EU debate certainly but while in the EU there is nothing we can do about that except perhaps limit their ability to immediately claim benefits.
Migrants from outside the EU, from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea etc are a slightly different issue and speak to the UK's level of compassion for those in desperate situations. At the moment we are doing nothing except bombing, Germany has played a generous hand taking so many and now it is up to the rest of the EU members to decide what they think is a fair response to that, an EU judgement notwithstanding. So far Cameron is not being generous but after his statements on immigration he may be in a cul de sac.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
parliament voted against direct british involvement in an attack on syria. i expect the government to argue the use of the odd seconded pilot is indirect involvement. but i ask again, what law would have been broken?
It's military action taken in defiance of Parliament. As I just said.
Sirena
Don't monkey with the buzzsaw
This is the main part of the motion
That this House:
Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;
Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;
Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;
Then what's the point of having a Parliamentary vote on the issue? What's the point of having a Parliament at all, come to that? I hope they're held to account over this.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Opinion polls pretty consistently show that British people believe that we take in too many refugees, that may be changing fast but somehow I doubt it and I suspect that this volte face by the media which has done so much to inject toxicity into attitudes toward refugees will be very temporary.
And that motion was defeated. Therefore, Parliament voted that the situation in Syria did not require a British military response. Now it appears that the government has initiated such a response anyway. The British people should be outraged over this flagrant violation of their democratically expressed will.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
if i smack you then i can be charged under a range of statutes. which statute are you arguing was broken? i agree that it is against the will of parliament, i think it is deplorable, but i do not see how you can say 'it is illegal' unless you can point to a statute which has been broken, and which provides a remedy for its flouting. what law is it against? who would be charged and haled before a court for this? what sentence would a court hand out? it's all very well to witter 'it's illegal' but i don't see you pointing to what actual crime has been committed.
gosub
~#
I doubt if you specifically said refugees people would agree, which is why they are lumping them under the term migrants.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yes, i entirely agree. but you've adduced no evidence it is in fact a crime. the way the motion was worded, and the reason i quoted it, was - i think - designed so this sort of indirect involvement wouldn't ever be brought to parliament anyway and therefore hasn't been voted down. if raf planes bombed damascus, that would be direct involvement. if one member of a plane's crew is british, and they have been seconded to the usaf, i suspect as i've said the government would say that's indirect, it's not something the mod in fact ordered.
Oh piss off you ludicrous pedant. Your government is bombing a sovereign nation in open violation of the people's expressed will. Your nit-picking response to this situation is utterly pathetic.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i am not nit-picking - to say something is illegal is to say (in the uk) it is against criminal law. all i have said is a) what law are you saying it's against?; b) i don't think the government believe what has happened is against the will of parliament, as they would argue (though i would not) that this is indirect involvement, and c) going against the will of parliament is not, to the best of my knowledge, a crime when no actual law appears to have been broken. it's all very well you insisting it's illegal: but that's not worth the pixels it's written in.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Yes, like Iraq or the Kosovo war or.. ad infinitum
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
the thing is that iraq was very definitely against international law - waging aggressive war a war crime since nuremberg. dwyer basing his claim of illegality on going against the will of parliament, which i am not aware to be an actual crime.
Idiot.
Anyway, this is getting away from the topic of refugees and should probably be in the Syria thread. But let's hope we see Cameron in the dock alongside Blair one of these days.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
slowly drifting away, facedown and motionless, from the pier.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
I nearly did some stuff with them a year or so ago, but I was put off by the quite strong religious tone (Catholic) and the confused position where anyone they helped at sea they then reported to the authorities.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
how strange. and unwelcome.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
"MOAS was founded by Christopher and Regina Catrambone. Christopher is from New Orleans (USA) while Regina is from Reggio Calabria (Italy). After the 2013 loss of hundreds of migrant lives off the Italian island of Lampedusa, the couple heeded Pope Francis’s appeal to entrepreneurs to do what they could to help prevent further catastrophes in the Mediterranean."
"When a migrant vessel is spotted by one of MOAS’s camcopters, we immediately provide visuals to the appropriate official Rescue Coordination Centre to help ascertain the vessel’s condition and the migrants’ needs."
From their FAQ.
Similar threads
