The U.K.

[noddy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovaY1KlQRi4

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Cuba found it really easy to (partially) afford to show off when Russia and Venezuela were paying for it. Or did I miss the meeting where health care is recognized as a success when you ask your citizens to provide their own medical supplies from the black market?

I have no doubt Cuba has invested a lot in training their doctors well (and some of their cutting edge/experimental stuff speaks for itself) but for all that training and "medicine of the future" stuff; there is a very real gap between what they show off and the practical aspects that the everyday shmoe (and world traveler) experiences when using a system that is supposed to be designed for them. Being advised to pack a bag full of gauze and strips and bandages before traveling to Cuba is not my idea of a good system.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

There has been a great gnashing of teeth o'er this election. The election of the bumbling, limp conservatives and the empty suit of downing street is apparently the most apocalyptic event yet this week! (Except for global warming, and UKIP, and rape culture, and islamophobia and the royal family and leaving the EU, and the people of greater London and southeastern England, and...well you get it.)

I, of course, encourage this discontent because what have the English ever done for us?

9foi342LXQE

Someone wrote to me that he respects Boris Johnson even though he considers him an evil snake disguised as a teddy bear. And all this time I was thinking Johnson was a slob disguised as a serious politician!

[Endovelico]

Cuba found it really easy to (partially) afford to show off when Russia and Venezuela were paying for it. Or did I miss the meeting where health care is recognized as a success when you ask your citizens to provide their own medical supplies from the black market?

I have no doubt Cuba has invested a lot in training their doctors well (and some of their cutting edge/experimental stuff speaks for itself) but for all that training and "medicine of the future" stuff; there is a very real gap between what they show off and the practical aspects that the everyday shmoe (and world traveler) experiences when using a system that is supposed to be designed for them. Being advised to pack a bag full of gauze and strips and bandages before traveling to Cuba is not my idea of a good system.

Let's see:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Cuba:

In 2006, BBC flagship news programme Newsnight featured Cuba's Healthcare system as part of a series identifying "the world's best public services". The report noted that "Thanks chiefly to the American economic blockade, but partly also to the web of strange rules and regulations that constrict Cuban life, the economy is in a terrible mess: national income per head is minuscule, and resources are amazingly tight. Healthcare, however, is a top national priority" The report stated that life expectancy and infant mortality rates are nearly the same as the USA's. Its doctor-to-patient ratios stand comparison to any country in Western Europe. Its annual total health spend per head, however, comes in at $251; just over a tenth of the UK's. The report concluded that the population's admirable health is one of the key reasons why Castro is still in power. A 2006 poll carried out by the Gallup Organization's Costa Rican affiliate — Consultoría Interdisciplinaria en Desarrollo (CID) — found that about three-quarters of urban Cubans responded positively to the question "do you have confidence to your country's health care system".

In 2000, Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan stated that "Cuba should be the envy of many other nations" adding that achievements in social development are impressive given the size of its gross domestic product per capita. "Cuba demonstrates how much nations can do with the resources they have if they focus on the right priorities - health, education, and literacy." The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-governmental organization that evaluated Cuba’s healthcare system in 2000-1 described Cuba as "a shining example of the power of public health to transform the health of an entire country by a commitment to prevention and by careful management of its medical resources" President of the World Bank James Wolfensohn also praised Cuba's healthcare system in 2001, saying that "Cuba has done a great job on education and health", at the annual meeting of the Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Wayne Smith, former head of the US Interests Section in Havana identified "the incredible dedication" of Cubans to healthcare, adding that "Doctors in Cuba can make more driving cabs and working in hotels, but they don't. They're just very dedicated". Dr. Robert N. Butler, who was president of the International Longevity Center in New York and a Pulitzer Prize-winning author on aging, traveled to Cuba to see firsthand how doctors were trained. He said a principal reason that some health standards in Cuba approach the high American level is that the Cuban system emphasizes early intervention. Clinic visits are free, and the focus is on preventing disease rather than treating it. Furthermore, London's The Guardian newspaper lauded Cuba's public healthcare system for what it viewed as its high quality in a September 12, 2007 article.

In 2001, members of the UK House of Commons Health Select Committee travelled to Cuba and issued a report that paid tribute to "the success of the Cuban healthcare system", based on its "strong emphasis on disease prevention" and "commitment to the practice of medicine in a community".

The Parliament of the United Kingdom also drew up an analysis of the key features of Cuba's healthcare system, drawing comparisons with the state funded National Health Service (NHS). The overall conclusion was that many of the features identified would not have occurred had there not been an obvious commitment to health provision demonstrated by the protection and proportion of the budget given the health care. The study concluded the following.

There appeared to be little evidence of a divide between the prevention/proactive response and the disease management/reactive response within Cuban healthcare.

By far the biggest difference was the ratio of doctors per person. In Cuba it was one doctor per 175 people, in the UK the figure was one doctor per 600 people.

There is a commitment in Cuba to the triple diagnosis (physical/psychological/social) at all levels.

Extensive involvement of "patient" and the public in decision making at all levels.

Integration of hospital/community/primary care via polyclinics.

Team-work that works is much more evident both in the community and the hospital sector and the mental-health and care of the elderly sites visited were very well staffed and supported.

(...)

Like the rest of the Cuban economy, numerous reports have shown that Cuban medical care has long suffered from severe material shortages caused by the US embargo. The ending of Soviet subsidies in the early 1990s has also affected it.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Let's see:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Cuba:

In 2006, BBC flagship news programme Newsnight featured Cuba's Healthcare system as part of a series identifying "the world's best public services". The report noted that "Thanks chiefly to the American economic blockade, but partly also to the web of strange rules and regulations that constrict Cuban life, the economy is in a terrible mess: national income per head is minuscule, and resources are amazingly tight. Healthcare, however, is a top national priority" The report stated that life expectancy and infant mortality rates are nearly the same as the USA's. Its doctor-to-patient ratios stand comparison to any country in Western Europe. Its annual total health spend per head, however, comes in at $251; just over a tenth of the UK's. The report concluded that the population's admirable health is one of the key reasons why Castro is still in power. A 2006 poll carried out by the Gallup Organization's Costa Rican affiliate — Consultoría Interdisciplinaria en Desarrollo (CID) — found that about three-quarters of urban Cubans responded positively to the question "do you have confidence to your country's health care system".

In 2000, Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan stated that "Cuba should be the envy of many other nations" adding that achievements in social development are impressive given the size of its gross domestic product per capita. "Cuba demonstrates how much nations can do with the resources they have if they focus on the right priorities - health, education, and literacy." The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-governmental organization that evaluated Cuba’s healthcare system in 2000-1 described Cuba as "a shining example of the power of public health to transform the health of an entire country by a commitment to prevention and by careful management of its medical resources" President of the World Bank James Wolfensohn also praised Cuba's healthcare system in 2001, saying that "Cuba has done a great job on education and health", at the annual meeting of the Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Wayne Smith, former head of the US Interests Section in Havana identified "the incredible dedication" of Cubans to healthcare, adding that "Doctors in Cuba can make more driving cabs and working in hotels, but they don't. They're just very dedicated". Dr. Robert N. Butler, who was president of the International Longevity Center in New York and a Pulitzer Prize-winning author on aging, traveled to Cuba to see firsthand how doctors were trained. He said a principal reason that some health standards in Cuba approach the high American level is that the Cuban system emphasizes early intervention. Clinic visits are free, and the focus is on preventing disease rather than treating it. Furthermore, London's The Guardian newspaper lauded Cuba's public healthcare system for what it viewed as its high quality in a September 12, 2007 article.

In 2001, members of the UK House of Commons Health Select Committee travelled to Cuba and issued a report that paid tribute to "the success of the Cuban healthcare system", based on its "strong emphasis on disease prevention" and "commitment to the practice of medicine in a community".

The Parliament of the United Kingdom also drew up an analysis of the key features of Cuba's healthcare system, drawing comparisons with the state funded National Health Service (NHS). The overall conclusion was that many of the features identified would not have occurred had there not been an obvious commitment to health provision demonstrated by the protection and proportion of the budget given the health care. The study concluded the following.

There appeared to be little evidence of a divide between the prevention/proactive response and the disease management/reactive response within Cuban healthcare.

By far the biggest difference was the ratio of doctors per person. In Cuba it was one doctor per 175 people, in the UK the figure was one doctor per 600 people.

There is a commitment in Cuba to the triple diagnosis (physical/psychological/social) at all levels.

Extensive involvement of "patient" and the public in decision making at all levels.

Integration of hospital/community/primary care via polyclinics.

Team-work that works is much more evident both in the community and the hospital sector and the mental-health and care of the elderly sites visited were very well staffed and supported.

(...)

Like the rest of the Cuban economy, numerous reports have shown that Cuban medical care has long suffered from severe material shortages caused by the US embargo. The ending of Soviet subsidies in the early 1990s has also affected it.

This is the perfect article because it actually confirms what I said.

Cuba has a put a lot of effort into certifying doctors and research medicine. It spends an awful lot on prevention (and sometimes lucks out with prevention like when Castro's suppressed the gay community and saved Cuban homosexuals from the same extent of the AIDS epidemic seen in other nations.)

All of this looks really good in the abstract, in international reports and the like;

but

it doesn't say anything about the facts on the ground: there is a constant shortage of medicines, bandages, gauze, medical equipment...Cubans are expected to provide for these on their own, on their meager wages, and often from the black market or bribing health care workers. I've used the hospitals in the US and have been in medical facilities in the UK and Denmark (haven't used them myself) and I don't remember having to stop and buy tongue suppressors from ol'Rasmus hanging out on a corner in an overcoat, or having to pay Dr.John Bull 50 pounds under the table for more expedient service.

[Endovelico]

The fact is that in spite of being an economical basket case Cuba has offered its people very good medical care and education, even with the shortcomings you mentioned and have been mostly due to the US embargo. Which means that any country with a functional economy could do at least the same. Cameron's health and education policies are destructive without it being necessary, and that will finally drive Britons to action against an oligarchy which only cares for itself. To say we cannot afford extensive social policies is an outright lie. The cleptocratic oligarchy doesn't want it because it wants to funnel all resources to satisfy its needs. That was my original point.

[noddy]

50% of the uk's tax intake is spent on social security and health, another goodly chunk on education.



they are getting poorer, the tax intake is going down, healthcare will lose budget

cuba forces all the medical people to work at basic retail wages, it can only happen in a megalomaniac control economy, not a chaotic western one.

[Simple Minded]

The fact is that in spite of being an economical basket case Cuba has offered its people very good medical care and education, even with the shortcomings you mentioned and have been mostly due to the US embargo. Which means that any country with a functional economy could do at least the same. Cameron's health and education policies are destructive without it being necessary, and that will finally drive Britons to action against an oligarchy which only cares for itself. To say we cannot afford extensive social policies is an outright lie. The cleptocratic oligarchy doesn't want it because it wants to funnel all resources to satisfy its needs. That was my original point.

good point Endo. but does Cuba have the necessary resources to absorb all the Scotts?

clarification: the people of Scotland, not the alcoholic drink....

[Simple Minded]

cuba forces all the medical people to work at basic retail wages, it can only happen in a megalomaniac control economy, not a chaotic western one.

I think that was also endo's point. Finally, you two agree on something!

Was that really that hard, now get off yer butts and invite some oligarchs out to lunch....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjtEYt6l2Cs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ga9Bs4fzSY

[YMix]

they are getting poorer, the tax intake is going down, healthcare will lose budget

cuba forces all the medical people to work at basic retail wages, it can only happen in a megalomaniac control economy, not a chaotic western one.

I can only happen to what is probably the world's money laundering capital and definitely the proud owner of not one, but a chain of tax havens.

"Making everyone poorer every day"

[noddy]

last time they had a bad downturn they tried to extract more from the mobile rich who just ran away to singapore, dubai and the other oligarch friendly places, oligarchs dont pay taxes in any country, if they do they are not oligarchs

getting more millions from rich people doesnt solve billion dollar problems much anyway.

[noddy]

cuba forces all the medical people to work at basic retail wages, it can only happen in a megalomaniac control economy, not a chaotic western one.

I think that was also endo's point. Finally, you two agree on something!

Was that really that hard, now get off yer butts and invite some oligarchs out to lunch....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjtEYt6l2Cs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ga9Bs4fzSY

vive le revolution.

more power to governement so they can give more power to corporates to protect us from government who are protecting us from corporates.

[YMix]

last time they had a bad downturn they tried to extract more from the mobile rich who just ran away to singapore, dubai and the other oligarch friendly places, oligarchs dont pay taxes in any country, if they do they are not oligarchs

getting more millions from rich people doesnt solve billion dollar problems much anyway.

They may have moved their a$$es to Singapore or Dubai, but the money is likely still in London.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Patrick J. Buchanan
Is a UK Crackup Ahead ?

.

David Cameron is the most successful Tory Party leader since Margaret Thatcher.

Yet history may also record that his success led to the crackup of his country, and Great Britain’s secession from the European Union.

How did Cameron’s Tories capture their majority?

First, they compiled a strong record to run on.

More critically, they attacked the Labour Party of Ed Miliband as too far left to govern, and warned that a Labour government would be hostage to a secessionist Scottish National Party, without whose votes Miliband could never reach a majority in Parliament.

Labour could not shake off the charge, because it was true.

The attack on the SNP as a subversive party secretly allied with Labour had an ancillary benefit for the Tories. It helped produce a SNP sweep of all but three of Scotland’s 59 seats. The Labour Party was virtually wiped out in Scotland, its northern bastion.

How Labour recovers from this amputation is hard to see.

What does this portend for the United Kingdom?

To keep Scotland within the UK, Cameron has promised a “devolution” of tax and spending powers to the Scottish Parliament.

But this will not be enough. For the Scots are going to be forced to sit in Westminster for five years and watch a Tory prime minister, acting on Tory principles, gut the social welfare state in which they believe. And, with Labour, the SNP will be helpless to stop it.

This situation seems certain to stir Scottish demands for a new referendum on independence, which would have a far better chance of succeeding than the last one — it lost 45-55.

What does the SNP want?

Retention of the social welfare state, British nuclear missile subs out of Scottish bases and Scotland out of the U.K. But Scottish nationalism is certain to generate a countervailing English nationalism.

Scotland’s demand for a divorce may soon find an echo in England.

Which brings us to the party that won 13 percent of the vote, three times the SNP total, but only a single seat in Parliament.

This is the United Kingdom Independence Party, whose populist leader Nicholas Farage resigned when he failed to win a seat of his own.

Nevertheless, the UKIP and the anti-EU Tories, some of whom sit in Cameron’s cabinet, have been promised a national referendum on secession from the EU by 2017.

Consider how the interests of these parties will push them all toward an England that is free of the EU and of Scotland both.

Unhappy with Tory policies, yet unable to alter them, the Scots are likely to create conflicts in Parliament that strengthen the forces of secession.

Former SNP leader Alex Salmond, who won a seat in the Parliament, is promising it.

As for the Tories, with Scotland outside of the U.K., they would see a brighter future. For Scotland is lost to them, and in a U.K. of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a Tory future is assured.

As for the UKIP, its goal of secession from the EU would be easier to achieve if the pro-EU Scots are out of the U.K. and unable to vote in the referendum on Britain’s future.

As for Labour, the SNP is now not only its dominant rival north of Hadrian’s Wall, it is a secessionist albatross draped around their neck in England. What good is Scotland to Labour now?

Yet the United Kingdom may be only the first of the nations of Old Europe to break up or break out of the EU.

Should Scotland leave the U.K., this would surely set off a reflex reaction in Catalonia in Spain, Veneto in Italy and Flanders in Belgium.

Moreover, the forces driving the European Union toward a breakup today seem far stronger than the forces for deepening the political and economic ties of Europe.

In postwar Europe, transnationalism and globalism, the opening and erasure of borders, the transfer of power from nation-states to transnational institutions and elites, all seemed inevitable.

No more. Jean Monnet is passe. Now is the time of Marine Le Pen and Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP. Patriotism, populism, nationalism are the growth stocks of 2015.

Northern nations like Germany and Holland are weary of carrying what they see as the lazier and more profligate EU members of Club Med. In Greece and Spain, populist parties are fed up with the endless austerity demands of the Germans.

Most of the countries of Europe have a secessionist party or an anti-immigration, anti-EU Party. Like Great Britain, some have both.

Across Europe, peoples are eager to recapture control of their borders from the EU and halt immigration, especially from across the Mediterranean, where war, terrorism, poverty and overpopulation are propelling north millions of Arabs, Africans and Muslims who are failing to assimilate into European societies.

These Europeans seek to re-establish their independence, to build nations that reflect their true identity, something we Americans went to war for in 1775, when we, too, threw the cousins out.

.

Amen

.

[noddy]

last time they had a bad downturn they tried to extract more from the mobile rich who just ran away to singapore, dubai and the other oligarch friendly places, oligarchs dont pay taxes in any country, if they do they are not oligarchs

getting more millions from rich people doesnt solve billion dollar problems much anyway.

They may have moved their a$$es to Singapore or Dubai, but the money is likely still in London.

maybe, if its hidden well enough in shell companies.

most of the smaller ones ive know are like international man of mystery azari, hiding his dollars from the mad mullahs in anglo canada, pretending to support the home country but mostly just blowing the loot on hookers and not spending enough time in any one country to get pinned.

[Simple Minded]

cuba forces all the medical people to work at basic retail wages, it can only happen in a megalomaniac control economy, not a chaotic western one.

I think that was also endo's point. Finally, you two agree on something!

Was that really that hard, now get off yer butts and invite some oligarchs out to lunch....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjtEYt6l2Cs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ga9Bs4fzSY

vive le revolution.

more power to governement so they can give more power to corporates to protect us from government who are protecting us from corporates.

sounds like a balanced approach......

After years of paying protection money to the Linguini family who keeps the Ravioli family from beating you up......... you find out they are related to each other.......

That's why no one likes deregulation, then I have to compete against the smarter or harder working or those in lower cost jurisdictions. Regulation where lobbying has a better ROI than R&D is more predictable & profitable.

business corrupting govt. or govt corrupting business, a chicken or the egg situation...... humans in both endeavors!

Still seeking divine administrators to tell us what to do...... where are they?

[Endovelico]

In Southern Europe we are not against a political union in Europe. We are now simply against an Europe which would include Northern European countries. Europe, the real Europe, the old Europe, is a Mediterranean Europe. We have our differences but are capable of a consensus, which would be impossible with Northern Europe. Divorce is the best solution. And since we have the European Economic Area - a continent-wide free trade zone - we can very well do away with the Northern European leash... A Mediterranean Union, with a common currency and common defense, would do very well indeed.

[YMix]

most of the smaller ones ive know are like international man of mystery azari, hiding his dollars from the mad mullahs in anglo canada, pretending to support the home country but mostly just blowing the loot on hookers and not spending enough time in any one country to get pinned.

[Endovelico]

This British bill of rights could end the UK
by Philippe Sands
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... uld-end-uk

David Cameron has given Michael Gove the task of scrapping the Human Rights Act and curtailing the role of the European court of human rights. Gove, the new justice secretary, is probably unaware of how poisonous are the contents of the chalice passed into his hands. And Cameron wants a draft bill within the first 100 days of his new government.

Adopted in 1998, the Human Rights Act incorporated into British law the European convention on human rights – one of the great international legal instruments of the 20th century – along with the UN charter. Reflecting Winston Churchill’s second world war aim of achieving the “enthronement of human rights”, it holds the governments of 47 European countries to account, offering individuals rights and protections against governmental excesses, including freedom of expression, fair trials and the prohibition of torture. Significantly, the 1998 act allowed UK courts, for the first time to interpret and apply the convention, requiring them to “take account” of the judgments of the European court of human rights in Strasbourg, but not to be bound by them (as is the case for judgments of the parallel EU court of justice in Luxembourg).
Michael Gove to proceed with Tories' plans to scrap human rights act

The act and the European convention are hated by some prominent Conservatives, but by no means all. They would like to get rid of the act and the Strasbourg court, although quite what they would replace them with is unstated. They propose a “British bill of rights” but do not know what it would contain, how it might work, and how – if at all – it would relate to the European convention. All we know is that its proponents wish that foreign criminals could “be more easily deported from Britain”, and that the supreme court was the “ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK”.

I served on the last government’s ill-fated commission on a bill of rights, set up by Cameron and Nick Clegg. I approached my role with an open mind. What I cared about was that the UK should remain a party to the convention. In the course of our deliberations, it became clear that three of the four Tory commission members appointed by Cameron, actively wished for the UK to leave the convention, and that one aim of their British bill was to facilitate that objective. That desire, not publicly expressed in the face of opposition around the country, led me to join Helena Kennedy in departing from the majority and opposing a British bill of rights.

Our commission engaged in a wide-ranging consultation, which made crystal-clear the overwhelming public support across the UK for continued adherence to the convention and the aims of the 1998 act. We also found no strong objection to the Strasbourg court, given the vital role it plays in guarding against abuses of the kind that plagued Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. To be clear, I don’t like some of its judgments, but they are a reason for persuading the court to change tack, not for destroying it. Our commission visited Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and found literally no one who had any objection to the current arrangements. The position was not much different elsewhere.

A further issue is that the 1998 act is embedded in the devolution arrangements for Scotland and Wales, and the Good Friday agreement guarantees that Britain will incorporate the European convention into Northern Ireland’s law. Repealing the 1998 act would drive a coach and horses through these arrangements. The Tory appointees were unable to find a way to address this, short of recognising that people in different parts of the UK may have different human rights, depending on which side of a border they happened to live. Such an approach would be calamitous if you care about maintaining the union.

If Michael Gove is clever, he will delay matters until after an EU referendum

Even assuming a way can be found to address all these matters in 100 days – a tall order, given that eight of us couldn’t find a way in 700 days – what would a bill of rights contain? My four Tory friends on the commission couldn’t agree on that either.

That said, Martin Howe QC produced a draft bill which gives a frightening hint of what some may have in mind: he proposes that the rights of any individual would depend on whether they were a British citizen (full fundamental rights), an EU national (fewer rights) or a foreigner (even fewer rights). Such an approach is inconsistent with the very notion of fundamental human rights, in which every human being has basic minimum rights.

Cameron has now declared himself to be a “one-nation” Tory, committed to the maintenance of the union. But abandoning the convention and adopting Howe’s proposals would be deeply divisive, and would surely speed up the dissolution of the United Kingdom. If Gove is clever, he will delay matters until after an EU referendum and after the government has sorted out its approach to devolution, making it clear that withdrawal from the convention is off the table. On this basis there can be a sensible debate across all parties, dealing with the realities of constitutional change.

Basic human rights, as listed in the convention, must surely apply equally across the UK. And rather than Strasbourg being a problem, there is now considerable evidence that judgments in the UK courts influence decisions taken in Strasbourg. Changes on particular rights can be achieved without destroying the convention and Britain’s global leadership in international human rights law. Michael Gove is entitled to some time to get to know the landscape. If he listens to all views in his own team, he could still achieve change and at the same time enhance the UK’s role in Europe and beyond.

Philippe Sands QC is a barrister in the Matrix Chambers and a professor of international law at University College London.

This is what voting for the Conservatives really meant. Congratulations to all who so voted...

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


The Suicide of Britain

FOR much of European history, empire was the normal political arrangement: Large, polyglot, multiethnic and eventually multireligious, with a monarch on top and a jostling confederation underneath.

Then came modernity, democracy and nationalism, and the “nations” of Europe — half-real, half-invented — demanded self-determination and self-rule.

Between 1914 and 1945 (with a final act in the Balkans in the 1990s), this led to world-historical disaster, mass exterminations, ruthless wars for mastery. But out of those conflicts came a new kind of hybrid order. The nations would have self-rule, within borders redrawn by war and ethnic cleansing. But they would be supervised by a kind of postmodern empire, an imperial bureaucracy without the emperor — the European Union.

The outlier, as always, was Great Britain. Like its rivals, the United Kingdom lost its overseas colonies, but it kept much of its domestic empire, the several nations — English, Scottish, Welsh and Ulster Irish — that still share a flag and crown. And as befits its anachronistic status, Britain has held itself somewhat aloof from the European Union’s postmodern imperium, joining the union but not its common currency.

These distinctive arrangements have been good for the U.K. overall. Remaining a united kingdom has magnified its global clout, and being in the E.U., but not fully of it, has spared it the worst of the continent’s Euro-driven woes.

But neither arrangement may last much longer. In the headlines, last week’s British elections were a big victory for David Cameron’s Conservatives. But the deep winners were the forces of nationalism, Scottish and English, which suddenly have the United Kingdom as we know it on the ropes.

The Scottish story is the more remarkable one, since a decade ago Scottish independence still seemed a crank’s hobby, and after losing last year’s referendum on independence it was assumed that the nationalists had shot their bolt.

Instead, the referendum campaign seems to have affected Scottish politics more than its technical outcome. As Alex Massie, a pro-union Scottish writer, put it last week, in Scotland, “Nationalism is our new secular religion,” and the politics of identity suddenly “defeats all comers.” All but three, as it turned out: In Thursday’s vote, the nationalists took 56 out of 59 parliamentary seats in Scotland, effectively turning the heathered north into a single-party state.

What the Scottish nationalists ultimately want is to trade the Union Jack for the E.U.’s postmodern bargain:

ethnically-rooted self-government under a distant supranational umbrella, rather than a political union that can back wars or budget cuts that most Scots oppose. Not every Scot who voted nationalist last week is ready to support this vision. But the pull of union is clearly weakening in the north. Meanwhile to the south, a more English sort of nationalism wants out of the European Union completely, and suspects the Scots are getting too sweet a deal within the U.K. as it is. This is the spirit at work in UKIP, the populist, antiglobalist party that’s taking votes from both left and right, and in the Tory base as well.

The two nationalisms, north and south, can feed on one another. However reluctantly, Cameron’s government will have to give “little Englander” sentiment its due. (He’s promised a referendum on Britain’s E.U. membership for 2017). This will confirm the Scottish nationalists in their alienation, their desire to rule themselves alone.

On paper, the arguments against both disunion and a “Brexit” from the E.U. remain potent. The Scots really do reap significant benefits from union, and the nationalist vision of Scotland as a kilted Norway, oil-rich and social-democratic, is unlikely to survive contact with the realities of independence. Abandoning Britain’s “this far, no further” approach to Europe and leaving the E.U. outright, meanwhile, would cede economic and political influence (to France, most likely) for uncertain gains.

But these are practical arguments, and sometimes politics needs something more. The nationalists of Scotland and England, in different ways, offer a vision of political community as an object of belief, an end unto itself. Against that kind of message, it’s not enough to defend the present order bloodlessly, to say, “Yes, it’s anachronistic to have a miniature empire in this day and age, but really the net benefits make it worth keeping.”

Instead, you have to argue explicitly for a Great Britain. You have to invoke the United Kingdom’s world-bestriding past, which the Scots no less than the English sustained and died defending, with something more than awkward embarrassment. You have to make a case to the Little Englanders that Britain’s multicultural, Europe-facing present can keep faith with that past and not just bury it. You have to demonstrate that a liberal empire, no less than an ethnic homeland, can be something real and rooted — something felt in “the blood and guts,” as Massie put it during the Scottish referendum, “the bone and marrow of our lives.”

I’m a Yankee; this not my argument to make. But if our cousins can’t find leaders who can make it, there won’t be a Great Britain anymore.

For 100s of yrs, Brits were f*chin the others, divide and rule .. Poor Bonaparte, poor Bonaparte

Now, they themselves @ the receiving end of the same game

Well, looking at the European map, looks, Bonaparte having a "belated" come back .. say thank you to Angela

The real loser of WWII was Britain, lost all the empire and now a nobody .. maybe Chamberlain was right and Churchill wrong.

.

[noddy]

This British bill of rights could end the UK
by Philippe Sands
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... uld-end-uk

David Cameron has given Michael Gove the task of scrapping the Human Rights Act and curtailing the role of the European court of human rights. Gove, the new justice secretary, is probably unaware of how poisonous are the contents of the chalice passed into his hands. And Cameron wants a draft bill within the first 100 days of his new government.

Adopted in 1998, the Human Rights Act incorporated into British law the European convention on human rights – one of the great international legal instruments of the 20th century – along with the UN charter. Reflecting Winston Churchill’s second world war aim of achieving the “enthronement of human rights”, it holds the governments of 47 European countries to account, offering individuals rights and protections against governmental excesses, including freedom of expression, fair trials and the prohibition of torture. Significantly, the 1998 act allowed UK courts, for the first time to interpret and apply the convention, requiring them to “take account” of the judgments of the European court of human rights in Strasbourg, but not to be bound by them (as is the case for judgments of the parallel EU court of justice in Luxembourg).
Michael Gove to proceed with Tories' plans to scrap human rights act

The act and the European convention are hated by some prominent Conservatives, but by no means all. They would like to get rid of the act and the Strasbourg court, although quite what they would replace them with is unstated. They propose a “British bill of rights” but do not know what it would contain, how it might work, and how – if at all – it would relate to the European convention. All we know is that its proponents wish that foreign criminals could “be more easily deported from Britain”, and that the supreme court was the “ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK”.

I served on the last government’s ill-fated commission on a bill of rights, set up by Cameron and Nick Clegg. I approached my role with an open mind. What I cared about was that the UK should remain a party to the convention. In the course of our deliberations, it became clear that three of the four Tory commission members appointed by Cameron, actively wished for the UK to leave the convention, and that one aim of their British bill was to facilitate that objective. That desire, not publicly expressed in the face of opposition around the country, led me to join Helena Kennedy in departing from the majority and opposing a British bill of rights.

Our commission engaged in a wide-ranging consultation, which made crystal-clear the overwhelming public support across the UK for continued adherence to the convention and the aims of the 1998 act. We also found no strong objection to the Strasbourg court, given the vital role it plays in guarding against abuses of the kind that plagued Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. To be clear, I don’t like some of its judgments, but they are a reason for persuading the court to change tack, not for destroying it. Our commission visited Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and found literally no one who had any objection to the current arrangements. The position was not much different elsewhere.

A further issue is that the 1998 act is embedded in the devolution arrangements for Scotland and Wales, and the Good Friday agreement guarantees that Britain will incorporate the European convention into Northern Ireland’s law. Repealing the 1998 act would drive a coach and horses through these arrangements. The Tory appointees were unable to find a way to address this, short of recognising that people in different parts of the UK may have different human rights, depending on which side of a border they happened to live. Such an approach would be calamitous if you care about maintaining the union.

If Michael Gove is clever, he will delay matters until after an EU referendum

Even assuming a way can be found to address all these matters in 100 days – a tall order, given that eight of us couldn’t find a way in 700 days – what would a bill of rights contain? My four Tory friends on the commission couldn’t agree on that either.

That said, Martin Howe QC produced a draft bill which gives a frightening hint of what some may have in mind: he proposes that the rights of any individual would depend on whether they were a British citizen (full fundamental rights), an EU national (fewer rights) or a foreigner (even fewer rights). Such an approach is inconsistent with the very notion of fundamental human rights, in which every human being has basic minimum rights.

Cameron has now declared himself to be a “one-nation” Tory, committed to the maintenance of the union. But abandoning the convention and adopting Howe’s proposals would be deeply divisive, and would surely speed up the dissolution of the United Kingdom. If Gove is clever, he will delay matters until after an EU referendum and after the government has sorted out its approach to devolution, making it clear that withdrawal from the convention is off the table. On this basis there can be a sensible debate across all parties, dealing with the realities of constitutional change.

Basic human rights, as listed in the convention, must surely apply equally across the UK. And rather than Strasbourg being a problem, there is now considerable evidence that judgments in the UK courts influence decisions taken in Strasbourg. Changes on particular rights can be achieved without destroying the convention and Britain’s global leadership in international human rights law. Michael Gove is entitled to some time to get to know the landscape. If he listens to all views in his own team, he could still achieve change and at the same time enhance the UK’s role in Europe and beyond.

Philippe Sands QC is a barrister in the Matrix Chambers and a professor of international law at University College London.

This is what voting for the Conservatives really meant. Congratulations to all who so voted...

a whole lot of left wing venom and hyperbole and precious few facts ?

[Endovelico]

Cameron’s New Thought Police
May 20, 2015 | Author Pater Tenebrarum
http://www.acting-man.com/?p=37550

Shortly after the election victory that probably surprised no-one more than himself, David Cameron launched into explaining to the hoi-polloi what further transmogrification of the State is in store now that he’s got a free hand. He inter alia elated the audience with the following zinger:

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach.”

In other words, dear citizen, mafia uncle State will no longer leave you alone if you merely “obey the law”. Your “narratives of grievance” henceforth won’t be tolerated anymore!

As the Guardian reports, this means that now that the Lib Dems will no longer be able to veto Cameron’s more outlandish ideas, he intends to keep us all safe by fighting terrorism by means of an Orwellian thought police.

“A counter-terrorism bill including plans for extremism disruption orders designed to restrict those trying to radicalize young people is to be included in the Queen’s speech, David Cameron will tell the national security council on Wednesday.

The orders, the product of an extremism task force set up by the prime minister, were proposed during the last parliament in March, but were largely vetoed by the Liberal Democrats on the grounds of free speech. They were subsequently revived in the Conservative manifesto.

The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.

The aim is to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on the grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.

They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organizations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.”

It is actually hard to see what this bill could possibly “fall short of”. Given that any ideas that might be considered to “threaten the functioning of democracy” will require a special police permit to be uttered, we have to wonder if e.g. Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book Democracy, the God that Failed will be banned in the UK. The definition of “harmful” provided above is quite striking. In order to be deemed too harmful to be tolerated by the thought police one only needs to create a “risk of causing alarm or distress”.

(...)

Welcome to the new British Fascist Reich...

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Intelligence reports and German, Spanish and Russian documents show members of the British royal family were indeed far closer to Nazi Germany than has previously been recognized.


.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.



India calling for Britain to pay reparations to India
and other former colonies
for its decades of imperial rule


Brits must pay for all those Oil stollen from Persia for 55 yrs.


.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Black Britons demand reparations


Cameron's asset is from Slave trade


.