Rayvin

True, it has to be constitutional doesn't it? The Tories man, utter novices. I see the pound is on the up again...

It seems the backlash has started - The government has made clear it's going ahead anyway, with or without the courts apparently (wtf?), UKIP are up in arms calling for the judges to be sacked, the Brexiters are apoplectic... Labour incidentally has made clear previously (through the PLP rather than Corbyn, I hasten to add) that they wouldn't seek to prevent Brexit if Parliament was able to scrutinise it. Just to ensure the best possible deal.

I have to say, I feel a bit of a sellout for rooting for the Neoliberals on this one...

Fucking hell...

Yeah but you know, he'll have some stuff about holding people's feet to the fire and so on. And UKIP look rudderless without him. It's hard to call this though - you'd think all Labour MPs would vote for Remaining. The Lib Dems would and the SNP would. UKIP's one MP would vote for Brexit. So it's really down to the Tories - I could see BoJo voting Remain

Yeah but the frequency of CT flounces are increasing. Has it actually happened on this occasion just because of MF's (brilliant) caricaturing of him?

Wonder if Farage will use this as an excuse to return...

Never realised the Leazes issue was this divisive... I always had the impression the whole board rose up and smote him. I can't really comment though, other than to say that if someone were to draw up a history of this board, noting key events in a timeline, his banning would be a key event and the following period would be known as the post-Leazes era. It seemed a significant moment. I'd say we're now in the post-CT era though. I like naming time periods

I fully agree that this stuff is in the Qu'ran. To be honest, as I posted earlier, I'm no defender of Islam. It's hugely right wing, and not in the least bit aligned with modern Western secular democracies. While it will add to our overall culture to a degree, it certainly seems more like something we tolerate rather than embrace. I'm just keen that, as well as acknowledging this, we acknowledge that much of the strife we have in this respect comes from our own ridiculous decision making by *drum roll* an establishment that is more concerned about profits and ensuring its own power than it is about the actual lives of ordinary people. Yes, I did manage to shoehorn anti-establishment sentiments into this post

That seems to be what the press thinks but I reckon he'll get the Hull game. If he loses there, there's literally no point in keeping him.

Yeah, tribalism in politics might get them over the line anyway. It's a really interesting one and I'd actually like to see the MPs deal with it.

I don't see how calling it what it is, as you have done, and which I agree with, means we can't also look at the underlying causes though? Let's say they are deranged and brainwashed - because they are - how do people end up in that state? You can't just go up to a sane and well adjusted person and brainwash them. These people will be angry and hateful anyway. HF cited the Pentagon earlier for one thing, and they make points that support the idea that it's more complicated than just ideology. You'd think they'd know what they're talking about.

Yes, let's hope not. Labour are nowhere near ready for that. That said, Labour could ride the wave of the Remainers vote if they play it correctly. It could become a single issue GE. Fucking hell, it'd be an absolute bloodbath...

Well said.

In theory, that's what it sounds like, although you'd have to have quite a show of support from the public for that many MPs to countenance doing such a thing. The good thing is it'll give them nowhere to hide. So if, as people think, Corbyn voted out of the EU, he'll do so again here.

It was just before i started posting actively, so while I have some memory of Leazes, I think I missed the 'final solution' aspect of his time here. One thing you have to say for him though is that he's too stubborn (fortunately) to do a Thompers. He could get back on if he really wanted to - he just won't do it. What was Renton's role in it anyway? The figurehead of the anti-Leazes movement?

Yeah that's true as well, you certainly can't say it's only the West who suffer these people. I'm sure aimaad has pointed out before that Islamic countries suffer far more terrorism than we do (which does make it seem political once again...) Anyway we seem to have concluded this discussion on a point of relative agreement.

Was it Renton who got Leazes banned?

I haven't mentioned suicide bombers in this conversation I don't think, although I agreed with HF about the factors involved being more complicated than simple ideology. Where we seem to disagree in all of this, is the relative importance we both place on Western intervention. I think that without it, we wouldn't be facing the scale of attacks that we're seeing, and that are own actions have demonstrably endangered our populaces. You think, I assume, that we'd be facing this anyway?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/parliament-must-trigger-brexit-high-court-rules The High Court may have come to our rescue...

Agreed but you can only argue the points in front of you.

I'm actually pretty confused now... I think the semantics are what we're stumbling over. Let's break it down further in the hope of resolving this because I'm now 99% certain that we agree. ISIS were established by someone who believes in Islamic supremacy. I agree. However, ISIS would have gotten nowhere near power or influence though, if we hadn't barged into Iraq under false pretenses and wiped out everything that was stopping them develop. So when you say we didn't create ISIS, you mean that a Jihadist nutjob created ISIS. And when I say we did, I mean they would never have come to be had we not given them the exact conditions they required to start seizing power, and that if we hadn't done this, we wouldn't now be having to deal with them - even though the guy who established them would still have had his views. Do we agree on that? Yes we should. Or rather, we should continue to let them be oppressively ruled if all we're going to do is open the door to something worse by failing to finish the job we started. If a foreign power invaded our country, took out all forms of government and otherwise bombed us back to the stone age, we'd probably all be at the mercy of the right wing neo-nazis. I don't think the Arab experience is a unique one based on their culture. I don't even know why you'd want me to say they aren't ready for democracy... it's no odds to me whether they're ready for it or not. The point is, they don't have it now, and their situation is worse than when we invaded. I'm not wedded to the idea of democracy being the one true way of governance though, so maybe I'm abnormal in this respect.

Imagine if something similar had happened with us and the mackems. They'd be incandescent with rage to this day. Maybe Spurs are just the London mackems

This is fair. I'm not sure it's the be all and end all of the issue, but I can see why these points would be serious issues for many Muslims.