主播大秀

In the list that you had for problems last night about the AU problems you didn't have population. Not sure what the aid agencies say but I think it must be a global problem and one that will impact Africa first in all probability due to food production issues.

On Huffington I would be interested to know how much pressure and manipulation is directed at her. Probably would come up anyway.

Is 3% that significant? Can King avoid answering how long he think the "credit crunch" and oil supply/demand problems will last. If its a couple of years then 3% might become 5%? Then we are worried.

Apologies for the drum banging but somebody needs to put the possibility of an SNP win in the 2010 referendum on the agenda. Not whether its a good thing or a bad thing but what if its an inevitable thing. I don't believe a split is that easy - but maybe you people know things I don't.

"Bids are in for the Chancellor and Yvette Cooper..." May I record my bid of damn all for the pair of them?
When you feel you've done enough vox pops on how the average South African in the street feels about Zimbabwean immigration, is there any danger of looking at how Brits feel about mass-immigration here and its effects on their way of life? No? I thought not.

thegangofone: Remember the entire population of Africa is only about 700 Million. Compared to India or China which both have well over a billion each in a fraction of the land its a very sparsely populated continent. 'over population' is only a problem because of the lack of industrialised food production and distribution. Given the huge levels of HIV in Africans aged between 15-45 Africa could very easily become an continent full of kids and old people in which case a LACK of population of working age people could be its biggest problem.

HIV is a big problem in India and China and its the rate of spread that would be the issue.

But I think you have a fair point in some countries like Lesotho (think Paul Mason did an interesting piece on that a year or so ago) it could be a drop not a raise in population levels.

But sub-Saharan Africa you really have, on my primitive understanding, a population that cannot be supported by the land. Its not famine anymore they have needed aid for the last twenty years I think.

On the industrialisation side I am not sure that is true. Kenya for example is pretty well mechanised. Most of the supermarket production of flowers (not edible I know) comes from kenya and quite a deal of vegetables. Uganda is pretty well advanced. Zimbabwe used to be - but thats a different problem.

Perhaps the caveat I should have added though was "long term".

Some people say that technical advances will keep food production in step with population.

But the bottom line is finite resources can't support a potentially infinite population. Population growth is on an exponential curve.

Could News Night find out from the Gov how the UK would be able to defend the rights of self determination of the Falklands islands under the Lisbon Treaty please ?

As I read the treaty to say that the EU Council of Ministers would have to agree to any action on using our armed forces ?

Also If our Head of State is head of state of other countries that are not in the EU , how will HM defend these countries sovereignty not being able to use the British Armed forces to do this , unless the other EU member states agree with any action ?

Surly this is a serious Constitutional change ?

I think Michael Crick had a Conservative Nanny that made him eat spinach and to this day he never forgives the Tories

Steve London: Who's going to stop us if we retake the Falklands? The German army has to be home before dark so I don't think its a problem and the French have just decided to hugely downsize their forces. Equally whenever the French are fined by the EU they just ignore it so any non-military sanction against us is equally toothless.

We have a serious commitment to defend Belize but every other nation that the Queen is also head of state for (canada, new zealand, australia) really should be able to look after themselves.

You do raise a very serious point but only if we're fool enough to actually comply with EU rules.

The fact that Hazel Blears has had a laptop stolen with defence/terror files on it is unbelievable within days of documents being left on the train TWICE.

Even if there may be suspicion that there is a campaign going on (maybe Peter_Sym was right about MI5 pay - maybe this is their idea of a strike) its surreal. Absolutely mind-boggling.

Please do a piece on the lack of a culture of secrecy. I can't see a general piece getting D-Noticed or whatever.

On #7 I think you also run into problems with alleged rules regarding the proposed aircraft carriers.

The US, I believe, said we can buy some planes for them but we can't use them unless they say so. So if the EU wanted us to act via the carriers we would have to ring the US. A quick meeting in Brussels and/or Washington then the military could fire their guns. Lets hope we have no Pearl Harbour situations!

#7

Hi Peter

Thanks for responding.

If we break our Treaty obligation we not only break the EU Treaty/Law but we also break our own Common Law.

As you state Canada, New Zealand and Australia should be able to defend themselves , a fine statement and could be true , tho there would be serious implication s of this policy .
Why have the Queen as the head of state of there countries ?

This is yet another serious Constitutional change ?

But the Gov has used the argument that this Treaty of Lisbon does not change our Constitutional practices in any serious way to refuse us a Referendum on this treaty ?

If I have read the Treaty right , I suggest it does and therefor there should be a Referendum put to the people of this country ?

I suggest this would be a good point to put to the Gov.

WAR ON PARTY POLITICS

I feel it is time for another abstract noun attack. With painful times looming, and the poor still holding the 'unpleasant end' of the Labour stick, and Winter only a summer away, yet must we watch the deceitful, disingenuous utterances from all parties, as they set their sights - not on the misery of those with gas-keys and one-bar fires - but on VICTORY, at any price, in the next election. Already we have had a stream of the usual suspects - now guilty to a man (sic) - defending the indefensible, safeguarding exposed derrieres, priming the ground ahead for another deception, but never combining in concern and integrity to DO SOMETHING NOW for the poor sods who are going to be shafted in coming months. Brown's work of change has turned his over-fertilised, transient greenery, into a Brown field sight (sic) but the party-vultures just circle and bide their time; time that those they are supposed to represent DO NOT HAVE.

Hi Steve,

The Queen is head of state of various places for purely historical reasons. Fundmentally the only significance if Canada, Oz etc became Republics would be that they'd have to pay a Presidents salary. The Belizean issue IS significant (likewise South Korean soveriengty) as we have UN obligations to both. My dad was mobilised to Belize in '78 last time the Guats threatened so we do (or at least did) intend to honour that treaty.

Likewise if we broke our own common law who'd care? One or two 'Peace protestors' of the sort that are still outside Greenham common a decade after it shut who chant 'illegal war' every time we do anything (legally!) with our troops.

Technically prosecutions are brought by the Crown and technically the armed forces (certainly the Navy and Airforce are the Crowns) so a prosecution would be 'Crown versus Crown'. Funny, but not likely to happen.

From watching the french it seems the way to benefit from EU membership is just to blindly ignore any bits that don't suit. Its a pretty toothless beast if choose to flaunt its laws. As a net contributor the EU needs us more than we need it and we should remind Brussels of this more often.

# 8

Hi thegangofone

Thanks for responding.

I heard it differently , we could use the planes forever we wanted , but we could not get all the computer source code or the radar signature data for the planes , thus we would not be able to design our own updates for the planes.

What I heard was that the Americans were scared of the UK having to share this data with the EDA (European Defense Agency), as under the Treaty rules we have to put out tenders to other European Defense Companies , thus the sensitive data would be passed on to others.

I am not sure if this situation has been sorted out or not yet ?

So yes the Lisbon Treaty does effect our relationship with America .

SEXUAL ORIENTATION 'SET IN WOMB'

Sorted! Now where does that leave paedophiles and all the other branches of sexual preference? Can the law, ethically, criminalise that over which one has no control? Lock up alcholics? Deport gingers? To those using scanners I say: 'Be careful what you look for . . .'

In a country of just 12 million which is riddled with HIV, plagued by a high birth rate, and has a crippled/sabotaged economy, an inevitable brain-drain to the EU etc will mean that there simply aren't enough capable adults to run the railroads let alone anything else.

So, isn't Western backing of a 'liberal-democratic' (anarcho-capitalist/workers democractic) party like the MDC courting disaster? Surely such people aren't ready for liberal democracy, they need protection from predators, and they need better population management, much as China, 1995 hs implemented. Note, this is proscribed by Aricle 3(2) of the EU FCHR.

Conclusion: Authoritarian governments are more likely/inevitable in nations populated largely by over-grown children as the alternative is anarchism. Surely this is why Mugabe is now confidently issuing fighting talk and why other sub-Saharan leaders are largely sympathetic?

How will 'Stalinist' China help apart form vetoing UN sanctions...hmmmm?

OVERGROWN CHILDREN EVERYWHERE

Too region-specific Jaded Jean. Worldwide, we are all overgrown children, diminished by nurture, retarded by schooling, arrested by puberty and lost in the rat race. The most agitated overcompensaters strive for high office and the rest either abstain or vote the buggers in. Good 'ere innit.

Barrie (#15) - True, but there are important 'regional' differentials which are still sustained by gene barriers. I removed some of that in the interest of political correctness:

#12 Steve-London

You are probably right. I think I got it off Bremner Bird and Fortune - but it may have related to quoting and negotiations at that stage.

That's interesting thanks.

JEAN THERAPY

Hi Jaded. D'accord. Good to know you are attending to the sensibilities of the Pathetic Classes.

# 11

Hi Peter

Sadly you have me at a disadvantage on the Belize issue , I know very little about it , but I will conduct some research on it.

I have no objection to Canada, New Zealand or Australia becoming Republics, that their choice.

But what I do object to is forcing their hand in the issue , by removing the old security pact (eg these countries are Crown realms and deserve full Crown protection).

We have seen this Gov's dealings with the Gib matter a few years ago as an example.

Common Law

For a start any person can bring a court case against the Crown , but you could be right that the Crown can take over the case and drop it if it can proved its in the public interest to do so .I am thinking of the Mcwhirter vs Crown case in the 1970's.

Why Govs should not break laws ?

"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals."

Quote John Locke (1690)

PS. I have never said our Gov has acted unlawfully .
Tho I do personally think they are being disengenuious with the truth over the Lisbon Treaty !

Hi Steve,

Basically Guatamala has a bogus historical claim on Belize (dating back to 1715) several hundred years before there was a Guatamala.

When Britain withdrew from Belize there were ANTI-independence riots and one of the conditions of us giving the Belizeans independence was that we'd protect their sovereignty until they could defend themselves. The Guat army is 40,000 strong and armed with US Vietnam era equipment whereas the Belize defence force is only 600 strong. We usually keep a company of troops and some helicopters there on 'jungle training' but three times since independence we've had to send a few battalions when the guats have moved tanks up to the border.

Belize is a nice place, with nice people and has a pretty liberal democracy which is rare for central America. I'd support us defending them well ahead of most other countries.