Monday, 10 March, 2008
- 10 Mar 08, 05:52 PM
Tonight Jeremy Paxman and Newsnight will appear a little later - after the first in the series . The opening episode is a dramatic representation of senior Foreign Office Lawyer, Elizabeth Wilmhurst's decision to resign over the legality of military action.
On Newsnight we'll debate whether the war in Iraq was legal - and if it was not legal, whether that matters. We'll be joined by General Sir Mike Jackson one of those charged with running the war five years ago, William Taft, who was at the time the legal advisor to the US State Department and leading QC Philippe Sands who doubts the legality of the war.
With just two days to go before the Budget we're already being told to expect many "green" measures. But does it really achieve anything other than increasing government revenue to put up taxes on so called environmentally bad things? Our science editor Susan Watts asks whether a few green taxes will really change anyone's behaviour. We'll then debate whether such taxes can be justified. And our economics editor Stephanie Flanders has a profile of the man with the job of making these decisions, Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling.
Finally, have you read the blog of Whitehall insider Civil Serf? It's believed to be the online outpourings of a disillusioned civil servant. At the weekend it disappeared from the web. So what happened? We've asked Michael Crick to find out.
Do tune in to 91热爆 2 at 10.30pm for Ten Days to War and then join us immediately afterwards.
Comments Post your comment
Dear Newsnight
If it turns out later that we had public servants and perhaps politicians not serving the national interests but more like the national interests of other countries what do you suggest we do with them?
a historical point here, and saying from the outset that the death penalty is totally wrong, it does exist on the statute book as far as I know for treason,
I'm not going that far to suggest that some people have being guilty of this but to make a general point of who might or might not be theoretically guilty of this crime, when Fuchs was found guity he was spared the gallows as he was not perceived to be betraying his country to the enemy, Russia was deemed to be still an ally at the time,
so when it comes down to it who exactly are our enemies and who are our friends? and will this influence the judgement of history on the Politicians and public servants who engineered the invasion of Iraq to steal their oil, against the wishes of most people in this country, and certainly against the national interest.
best wishes
Bob
Complain about this post
I am so looking forward to this programme. I know it has been heavily trailed but if this turns out the way I hope all the previous guff will be put to bed. Dodgy dossiers, 45 minute warnings...how did we fall for it? I, and of course, two million others who marched didn't but the result was still the same..we went, and all those lives, hundreds of thousands. It still drags on, all the phoney Bush/ Blair itinery still being played out. All built on a tissue of lives. Thank you Newsnight, no This Week, World in Action etc., it is all down to you. Don't let us down
Complain about this post
Democracy? Sent to a war that no-one wanted, millions spent while people wait forever on the NHS, crime riddles the streets of britain but no extra funds available for the police or prison service, teachers struggling in the classroom war in run down inner-city schools, businesses strugling under the burden of taxation.
No vote on the european treaty, and very little to chose between 3 middleground political parties. Democracy? I ask u....rant, rant, rant
Complain about this post
I have just watched the whole dramatisation. Must I now watch excerpts from it again during Newsnight proper? I am sure I am not alone in finding this a bit tiresome.
Complain about this post
The 91热爆 appear to be applying that old adage: Revenge is a dish best served cold..
P:S just like to say the iplayer is a welcome new addition.
Complain about this post
Whitewashing the past
Nothing like an impossible legal knot to confuse the public or the politicians.
Except that we now know that a major US construction company had drawn up plans for` Bondsteel` high tech military base on the porential oil pieline routes from Bulgaria and the Caspian sea while before any bombs fell or the conflict became internationalise.Now they found gas. There is agreat photo showing Mike Jackson clasping hands with the Kosova victors including drug and prostitution gang boss,Hashim Thaci.
We also know that the plans for Iraqi invasion were studied in the Hite wash House by Rice,Cheney and co early in 2001 acxcording to the book related by former US treasury secretary.
And today Britain reveals that it is to use funds for land mione and cluster bomb clearance for flying jets in Iraq.
Nothing changes does it.
Complain about this post
Whilst I generally support the principle that we all need to reduce our carbon footprint, the local council is is still adding to our combined carbon footprint by introducing further traffic calming schemes. A classic example of this is the proposed traffic calming scheme at Woodplumpton.
I was recently approached by two Woodplumpton residents concerned about the impact of traffic calming proposals on the environment of their village. It would appear that there is heavy traffic flow trough the village when drivers attempt to circumnavigate the gridlock on the A6 at Broughton. It is alleged by some that the introduction of traffic calming through Woodplumpton will cut down the volume traffic, but this is unlikely to be the case, especially since the introduction of Sat Nav.
All that traffic calming through Woodplumpton is likely to achieve is the doubling of traffic pollution in the village, both vehicle emissions and noise. Even the most conservative statistics prove that traffic calming increases the production of carbon dioxide by 50%, not to mention brake dust and other particulates associated with component wear. I therefore object to the proposed traffic calming scheme on the grounds that it is bad for our planet.
If Lancashire County Council is genuine in its claim to be aiming to reduce our carbon footprint further traffic calming projects should be out of the question. Speeding can be addressed in most cases by the provision of simple flashing warning signs, but the speed cameras at each end of Copster Green on the A59 appear to work admirably in keeping traffic to the 40Mph limit. The relatively inexpensive measure of simply painting speed camera timing lines on the road at strategic places could also be proven to work for controlling speed. If there is an alleged speeding problem in Woodplumpton, why not try such measures there.
Perhaps the only practical way to reduce traffic and emissions through Woodplumpton is to build a Broughton by-pass to solve the current A6 congestion problem.
On the same conservative statistics, it has been shown that carbon dioxide emissions rise by 10% when 20 Mph zones are introduced. It is alleged that lower speed limits save lives, but as the speed limit is only a factor in 5% of accidents there is likely to be little benefit overall.
If lower speed limits save lives then it may be the case that a high proportion of those saved will end up as permanent cripples and be a burden on themselves and society for the rest of their lives. In any case, global warming is said to be likely to kill millions so its roundabouts and swings.
Supporting schemes like wind turbines is a sick joke if the county continue to introduce any traffic calming involving potential extra stops for the majority of traffic.
So the eco-fascists demand more green taxes, don't pizz down my back and tell me its raining, the fuel duty escalator did nothing to reduce congestion.
Complain about this post
When asked, before the invasion, what would happen if it turns out that Iraq doesn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction what would the US and its followers do? Blair replied in a clear, indisputable and straightforward way that in that case there would obviously be no war (stupid).
However, despite knowing there were no WMDs, this disastrous, illegal, ill-conceived, badly thought through invasion took place.
Now that it has turned into the biggest catastrophe since WW2 the brutality of Saddam is trotted out as the excuse used to try to justify the war in hindsight - despite the fact that Regime Change is not a legitimate reason to start a war under International Law.
Surely there is either the rule of law or there isn't. If not, then anything goes.
Complain about this post
CGT Tax Boost
Some winners & some losers but the biggest winner is the treasury.
CGT at 18% will prompt selling by shareholders in `08/09 by holders who might oterwise have held for the long term.Increase short term trading activity which also boosts stamp duty. Most importantly it will encourage company directors to take more of their income in shares via their options which in turn will encourage them to stimulate their company`s share price but not necessarily improve productivity,organic growth and employement. Many more unintended consequences.
We have been here before when in 1995/6 Clinton stoked up the markets with a cgt cut from 15 down to 10% leading to the horrendous bubble and crash of 1990/2000.(The (TMT) bubble under greenspan who is an advsor to the treasury at present.) Dodgy accounting pratices kept that going for a long tim-remember enron.
In the btl market there will also be increased activity as Darling anticipates price deflation and wants to maintain the highest property taxes of any oecd country.
Budgets always take more of our money away never the reverse.
Complain about this post
I have just switched News Night off in disgust, I despair of ever seeing a balanced and meaningful debate on the programme with speakers of equal knowledge and conviction.
Why did you have two participants in favour of our cowardly and illegal attack on Iraq and only one and a weak one at that, against it? The discussion was on Iraq but Paxman allowed the pro invasion speakers to divert off into Kosovo etc., and Philipe Sands wasn't strong enough to hold the others to the subject. It is not as though you wouldn't have known this! Philipe Sands is too timid to have been on his own in such a debate, especially when Paxman gets on his high horse.
One of the reasons why the worst case of British aggression in modern times ever took place at all, was because the media, including the 91热爆, were lazy and compliant in not challenging with sufficient vigour the false case that Blair made. It happened then and it is continuing to this day.
Complain about this post
To Bob Goodall:
Err no.....ithink youwill find that Blair had the death penaltt for the monarch and prime minister removed from statute book about 3 years back.
Also note the the New Lisbon ` I Can`t Believe its not Really a Constitutional Treaty` treaty has afootnote to a footnote that includes the death penalty for terrorism whose scope has been broadened.
Ane guess who wants to be the boss of that?
Complain about this post
If Ken Clarke sees green taxes as a fatal blow to the economy it seems he doesn鈥檛 hold out much hope for government鈥檚 ability to both tackle climate change and avoid economic recession. But if we鈥檙e really in an either or position between the two, which would he have us choose? It seems to me a false choice and that we need both. What also seems self-evident to me is that the problem of climate change must dictate our fiscal policy.
I鈥檓 reminded of the old Native American adage: Only when the last tree is cut down and the last river dried up will white man realise he cannot eat money鈥r something like that. The point is that even if policies like personal carbon allowances are paternalistic it鈥檚 a change we need to make in order to have our society behave in a way that tallies with our environment, with reality. The fact that such a green tax arrangement would be entirely contrived, an invented imposition, seems a false criticism since our entire economic structure is a contrivance that exists nowhere in Nature. Since our economic system is not God-give and sacred, and further more harms us and those in other countries, not to mention the harm it will cause to future generations, let鈥檚 change it.
Complain about this post
Re Iraq (not CGT)
It must be so hard to be PM, in such a situation? I do believe that.
Is it fair now, with hindsight, to go over it all with a "fine tooth comb"? Even for decisions of this huge importance?
At the time (2003), I wrote and spoke face to face with my local MP (Hugh Robertson) about the forthcoming Iraq vote.
My "intervention" carried little weight! History will be the best judge.
Complain about this post
In my view the discussion tonight on the Iraq war was a waste of time. You had two people on defending the legality of the war, one an American official and the other the top Army general. We could really have made a very good guess what those two would say without having to bother having them on the programme to actually say it.
Anyway one of them made the point that 2/3 of British public were in favour of the war, before it started. But he failed to mention (naturally) that was because the public were frightened by the UK and US governments telling lies over the WMDs of Saddam and their capability to reach our territory in 45 minutes.
The scandal is that our government was able, with the help of our largely subservient media, to get 2/3 of the public to back the war by telling blatant lies.
Complain about this post
If oil wasn't so useful and provided a value to lives, no expense, let alone wars would have been made to obtain it. Gulf War, World Wars, Civil wars. The distribution of revenues from a globalised international system of trade led to a revolutionary new form of trade to arise. It was only the 18th century, but the origins of the Stock Market can be traced back to the trade in tea by the British East India Tea Company. The income the trade brought was divided in the form of 'shares' held by the people. This way, everyone could benefit from the trade. Wonderful, the effects of Socio-economics. Isn't the problem of oil in Iraq that revenues did not reach the people ? Isn't this the cause for civil dissent ? IS this why a Basra Development Commission has been established to coordinate the revunues from Iraqi oil, preventing corruption and distribute it to the benefit of the people to develop public services, facilities and infrastructure ? Is it not good to improve people's lives through trade ?
Complain about this post
Some folks here truthfully believe that there were loopholes for us to invade (not saying much for morality of government using loopholes to kill people) - so I have decided to give analysis on why it was unlawful.
I use Goldsmiths own written legal advice to explain, as no country can legally invade another without legal justification to do so.
Even a legal novice should be able to see through Goldsmiths lies and deceptions - in which he aided and abetted Blair (along with Scarlett and others).
We all know that UN resolutions were the only supposed LEGAL excuse they could find to try to justify the removal of Saddam i.e. could not use regime change etc.
One quote: "The Attorney General had concluded that authority for the use of force in Iraq was contained within existing UN resolutions and that another was not needed, Mr Straw said in reply to an emergency question from the Opposition."
Indeed, it did not seem to matter how many Iraqis they killed in doing so - Blair would not give any upper limit when he would admit it was the wrong thing to do.
Keep in mind when reading this, that the UK signed up to UN1441 and are actually legally bound to this agreement.
First and most importantly of all - fact beats even 'expert opinion' - all lawyers know this.
Goldsmith (the Attorney General and Blair鈥檚 pal) certainly knows this - yet you will see he uses his opinion to falsify his excuses to overrule facts.
Please note the difference between his use of opinions and the actual FACT.
So - anything in the following with numbers 26-31 is from Goldsmiths written legal advice - anything in comment box is my analysis - anything starting with word 'quote' is from relevant UN Resolution:
26. To sum up, the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides. A key question is whether there is in truth a need for an assessment of whether Iraq's conduct constitutes a failure to take the final opportunity or has constituted a failure fully to cooperate within the meaning of OP4 such that the basis of the cease-fire is destroyed. If an assessment is needed of that situation, it would be for the Council to make it. A narrow textual reading of the resolution suggests that sort of assessment is not needed, because the Council has predetermined the issue. Public statements, on the other hand, say otherwise.
comment:*
He has failed to explain (either in the detail or summation) what exactly is unclear in UN1441 that would give countries permission for unilateral action - even in an unclear way - that is a FACT.
The key question he makes is a sham ("whether there is in truth a need for an assessment") - because it is a FACT - whether it is needed or not - UN1441 actually calls for an assessment.
He is clearly conning the reader - it is pure deception.
*
27. In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force. I have already advised that I do not believe that such a resolution need be explicit in its terms. The key point is that it should establish that the Council has concluded that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity offered by resolution 1441, as in the draft which has already been tabled.
comment:*
Not only the safest - but the only legal course using UN resolutions - because it is a FACT that is what UN1441 requires a further resolution - as per item 12.
Quote: "12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"
Again he is clearly conning the reader - it is pure deception.
*
28. Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.
comment:*
False - an outright lie.
FACT: UN1441 specifically recalls all prior resolutions - including UN678 - which now requires the UN "convene ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance".
This gives UN1441 primacy over UN678 - like your latest 'Last Will and Testement' - UN1441 now requires UN to decide.
Even if it did not - UN678 applied "all necessary means" only to the demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait anyway - "to restore international peace and security in the area Kuwait". As Iraq army are no longer in Kuwait, their argument is rubbish - it is not even a moot point.
Quote: "Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,"
Yet again he is clearly conning the reader - it is pure deception.
*
29. However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.
comment:*
False - an outright lie.
Nothing in UN1441 gives authorisation to use force under any circumstances - it recalls UN678 and now requires UN decision on next step.
FACT: UN1441 specifically requires the UN to make that judgement on what to do next - here it is again as stated in item 12.
Quote: "12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"
Yet once more he is clearly conning the reader - it is pure deception - starting to see a pattern?
*
30. In reaching my conclusion, I have taken account of the fact that on a number of previous occasions, including in relation to Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 and Kosovo in 1999, UK forces have participated in military action on the basis of advice from my predecessors that the legality of the action under international law was no more than reasonably arguable. But a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court I would be confident that the court would agree with the view. I judge that, having regard to the arguments on both sides, and considering the resolution as a whole in the light of the statements made on adoption and subsequently, a court might well conclude that OPs 4 and 12 do requ1re a further Council decision in order to revive the authorisation in resolution 678. But equally I consider that the counter view can be reasonably maintained. However, it must be recognised that on previous occasions when military action was taken on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, the degree of public and Parliamentary scrutiny of the legal issue was nothing as great as it is today.
comment:*
Opinion is not the same as fact - and especially not a "reasonably arguable" opinion.
FACT: Even if a previous war was illegal - illegality cannot be used as the basis of starting new wars.
You cannot use an argument that you got away with murder last time - so you can murder with impunity again.
Yet again he tries to revive the authorisation in resolution 678 for "all necessary means" - but we know for a FACT that UN1441 stops that and only applies to getting Iraq army out of Kuwait anyway.
Goldsmith admits, "a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court [he] would be confident that the court would agree with the view" - because his argument is rubbish.
*
31. The analysis set out above applies whether a second resolution fails to be adopted because of a lack of votes or because it is vetoed. As I have said before, I do not believe that there is any basis in law for arguing that there is an implied condition of reasonableness which can be read into the power of veto conferred on the permanent members of the Security Council by the UN Charter. So there are no grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation. In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as "unreasonable". The legal analysis may, however, be affected by the course of events over the next week or so, eg the discussions on the draft second resolution. If we fail to achieve the adoption of a second resolution we would need to consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the time."
comment:*
Vetos are valid even if "unreasonable" e.g. the many examples were the American veto could be considered "unreasonable".
He even admits that "there are no grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle" them to invade.
He says that if a second resolution fails - they need to *REconsider* "urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the time" - where is that review?
It can be seen by this analysis that Goldsmith does not have a legal case for invasion and I welcome people to show where the scrutiny is wrong.
*
Complain about this post
The 91热爆 is a cheap fraud.
Complain about this post
Under international law war is permitted only in self-defence or with an appropriate UN Security Council resolution specifically authorising the use of force (which was not given either for Afghanistan or Iraq in 2003). A previous comments mentions correctly that that the majority of UK citizens supported the war against Iraq in 2003, and again correctly emphasises the scandal that the government was able to persuade people by lying. However, another very important principle remains to be mentioned: Notice that the majority of outrage about how the protests against the war in the UK is based on appeals to democracy. In reality, if the case for war was that the Saddam regime was barbaric towards Iraqis, it is they that should have been consulted about his removal from power. That would have been the democratic thing to do. Sadly, of course, neither the intellectual discussion about war nor the attending media coverage mentioned that if we are proposing to extend democracy to Iraq, we ought to ask them if they want us to get rid of their tyrant (and our former ally). Nevertheless, as it stands and has done since 2003, the Iraq was is an illegal one, an act of aggression.
Complain about this post
Seeing that the motor vehicle generally provides the most effective means of transportation, would another technology or infrastructure that facilitates another means of safely and comfortably getting to one's destination not be able to supplant it or cause it to adapt, just as the internal combustion engine replaced the oxen, mule, and steam locomotive, so that passengers could ride on pneumatically cushioned cells that didn't have the unpleasantries of leaving odourous manure on one's person ? Would a fuel cell powered vehicle not use energy more efficiently as well as reduce choking emissions from combustion ? Would daily commuters into and out of Britain's cities not benefit from a more effective public transport system through park and ride and tram systems ? Would residents unfortunate to reside under the flight paths of airports not benefit from a rail network that effectively transported goods and freight in a less imposing manner ? Would this not also benefit consumers by reducing transportation costs ? Of course not, it's all the fault of the citizen of course. It's their fault the trains are expensive, full, dirty and late. It's their fault the rails are overloaded and the roads are crammed to bursting. It's their fault their local post office, greengrocer and newsagent has been put out of business by the supermarket, so that they have to drive miles to survive. It's their fault public money has been put into the nhs without so much as a commission or infrastructure to distribute funds effectively to deliver improved services. It is so easy to blame. Feasible alternatives are what is required. Democracy is not imposed, it is elected. Imposition will lead to resentment and revolt. Informed choice and freedom to choose will lead to responsible citizens who are savvy enough to pick the right choices that benefit themselves and others. What happenned to the benevolent Brit who could be trusted to be a good citizen ? Britain has become a land of increasing imposition, in the name of the environment, terrorism and business the Brits potentially face the ignominity of having a utopian eco-vision imposed upon it, while the America glorifies as always, consuming double that of the average Brit, and failing to invest in less energy intensive means of transportation. Be it smaller cars, less flights, more high speed rail, vacuum tube trains or fuel cell vehicles, without America embracing a less oil consuming culture in business affairs as well as domestic priviliges, Brits can lead by example, but only to the advantage of citizens who have chosen what is better for them from what is available for them. The choices should be increased, not reduced, and democracy as well as consumerism and service usage should not be imposed. A dictatorship is one that restricts what is available while the minority glorify in decadence. And it has been an incredibly long time since Britain sufferred the imposition of such a punitive and ineffective regime. In the name of progress, has history not enlightened the populace ? Has the toil of past generations been in vain ?
Complain about this post
I take it that Kofi Annan, the UN General Secretary at the time, was unavailable. He clearly stated in 2004 that he thought it was illegal.
He said...
"From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it (the war) was illegal."
Complain about this post
I was really looking forward to Newsnight, shame I was let down by a 'non-discussion' on the legality of the war in Iraq. Come on people, you can do better than this!
Complain about this post
Of course the war in Iraq was illegal. The whole starting point was based on complete fabrication of non-existent WMDs. People seem to have forgotten that had Saddam actually been loaded with missiles that could be launched in 40 minutes, it would have been highly unlikely that the US would have been amassing its 300,000 troops in Kuwait THREE months before Hans Blixen had even given back a report from Iraq. The basis that Saddam was flouting the UN charter, was actually never proved because the weapons inspectors were told to get out. The UN (Kofi Annan is on record of having declared the war illegal himself) had its arm twisted to comply with US wishes.
I鈥檓 disappointed that Jeremy took on General Sir Mike Jackson and William Taft to justify a bogus war. What sort of debate was that? Of course they were going to defend themselves. What鈥檚 more QC Philippe Sands who justifiable doubts the legality of the war was made to look ridiculous. I鈥檓 not impressed!
Complain about this post
How green do those in authority and the media think we are?
This all boils down to trust and credibility.
And both have been so abused by what is said, and where, then done (or not), that we are going backwards and seem to be spending more and more time and effort just trying to stay in one place rather than getting anywhere.
If this issue is, as so often claimed, the biggest thing 'we' face, then what on earth is it doing as the second slot on a late night political discussion piece, with a few peripheral players wittering away about ideals or the 'problems' of balancing 'ECO'logy with 'ECO'nomic growth... and no one in actual power to be seen or heard.
I think I heard the word 'tinkering' used, and to date that's all we've been getting, with only more of the same on the horizon in the future.
So let's get this straight: the best 'solution' is going to be green taxes in the UK?
Only mid-piece did the fiscal reality our national relationship within the international community come up. But again it seemed more based on fees and trading, which doubtless is attractive to those who will get to legislate and administer them, but still seems much more concerned with process than result.
I just can't get my head around how giving a 'fair' equal allowance to 6 billion people, and then letting them trade it around makes a whit of difference to what we end up consuming and hence emit in global totality. So... every Kalahari bushman or Mekong fishwife gets one long haul, one RyanAir and a 4-seat car equivalent up front, and can then flog it all to allow some celeb or media luvvie to buy a spare Prius or 'copter up to Antarctica to shoot another 'look what we're doing to the planet' doco?
Seems to me that even that notion is just tinkering, too.
We surely need to accept that there are just more and more of us who want to get more and more and go further and further. So the only way is to get us to need... or want less... and stay in one place more. Or be made to. And like it or lump it. Drastic, but true... if the consequences of our actions are indeed causing the problems we face. You know, 'the biggest thing... etc'.
Which is a pretty big scary notion to achieve, especially given the competencies of those who claim to be up to the task so far. And their priorities. Governments trying to cling to power, new bunches desperate to get in, businesses only worried about profits and media who would sell their mother's carbon allowance for an extra rating, and would bump a science piece on climate in a heartbeat if a Royal said something silly.
So given the voting consumer's expectations of life, aspirations and realities of democratic process, etc, and those theoretically guiding us in them... ain't nothing much going to happen. You don't stay in power long by not giving the public what they want.
So... still too many talkers; not enough doers... and a media happy to just play at the debating game if it's a slow news day.
No wonder the public is unconvinced.
Complain about this post
I was in fits of giggles when Jeremy (refering to Ken Clarke) said "It's come to something when you're the voice of sanity!" Ha ha ha ha :-)
I LOVE the "Behind the Scenes of Newsnight" film is so funny yet captures the imagination on a day at Newsnight, and also Peter telling Jeremy he's "anti the web!" Oh hysterical!!!!!
Complain about this post
Yesterday I had enough of politicians telling us that measures to combat climate change must not threaten our economy. Perhaps we can be thankful that Ken Clarke is not the chancellor with his views that the economy must not suffer. We also heard from the government that if we don't go ahead with a new programme of coal-fired power stations the economy will suffer.
When are politicians going to realise the urgency of attempting to combat climate change?
What economy STUPID.
Complain about this post
Mr Paxman should retire. He nowadays appears to think a stroppy attitude a substitute for a grasp of the issues being discussed and intelligent use of the members taking part in the discussion.
The US lawyer Taft was allowed to get away with repeatedly claiming that they believed the war to be legal because they believed the Security Council resolution sanctioned war because they believed the Security Council resolution sanctioned war because they believed ...
General Jackson, who had a personal interest in the war not being illegal (because that might make him into a war criminal) was allowed to opine time and again that he believed the Security Council resolutions sanctioned war because he believed .... Unfortunately Jackson is not a lawyer and the only authoritative opinion he could contribute to the debate (would we have asked Professor Philippe Sands how to win the war?) was how important it is to soldiers that the militay are not made into war criminals. Jackson also incorrectly claimed that two thirds of the UK population were in favour of the war before it started. In fact three quarters (75%) of people in Britain would have been prepared to support British troops joining military action against Iraq; however, this support was conditional both on UN inspectors finding proof that Iraq is trying to hide weapons of mass destruction, and on the UN Security Council voting in favour of military action.
The law is often nuanced and complicated and Professor Sands was never given the chance to develop the argument held by most international lawyers - that the war was illegal.
Paxman is no longer intereted in seeking out truths - he is more interested in making combative television and avoiding looking ignorant. Put him out to grass
Complain about this post
No mention of this positive NHS Story
I notice....
An operation for people with advanced pancreatic cancer has been performed by UK doctors for the first time.
In December, a team at London's Royal Free Hospital operated on a woman using the technique, pioneered in the US.
The female patient is now recovering well and experts believe the surgery could help up to 700 people a year.
This technique is exciting as it enables us to offer a whole new group of patients the opportunity for surgery
Kito Fusai, surgeon
There is currently no treatment for pancreatic cancer that is so advanced, with most patients given just six months to live.
Complain about this post
Am I the only viewer who is fed up with the tired lazy analysis of the war?
In last nights terrible drama we had the plucky Brit lawyer with a conscience, trying to hold on to the International rule of Law in the face of US indifference.. We saw Blair trying to defend the indefensible to worried mothers, to no avail because Chirac had vetoed the UN vote. If the 91热爆 were not so lazy and biased, someone might have asked the question why?
Why did Chirac let the media know that he would veto the second resolution regardless of the arguments? Of cause,now we know why. France and Russia were opposed to getting rid of the Iraqi dictator because of commercial self interest.
Sadham could have gassed all the people in Iraq and Chirac would still have said no.
However what I find most disagreeable is the need to debate the legality of the war now, whilst our soldiers are risking their lives. Those brave young men and women deserve better.
Dean
Complain about this post
Mr Paxman should retire. He nowadays appears to think a stroppy attitude a substitute for a grasp of the issues being discussed and intelligent use of the members taking part in the discussion.
The US lawyer Taft was allowed to get away with repeatedly claiming that they believed the war to be legal because they believed the Security Council resolution sanctioned war because they believed the Security Council resolution sanctioned war because they believed ...
General Jackson, who had a personal interest in the war not being illegal (because that might make him into a war criminal) was allowed to opine time and again that he believed the Security Council resolutions sanctioned war because he believed .... Unfortunately Jackson is not a lawyer and the only authoritative opinion he could contribute to the debate (would we have asked Professor Philippe Sands how to win the war?) was how important it is to soldiers that the militay are not made into war criminals. Jackson also incorrectly claimed that two thirds of the UK population were in favour of the war before it started. In fact three quarters (75%) of people in Britain would have been prepared to support British troops joining military action against Iraq; however, this support was conditional both on UN inspectors finding proof that Iraq is trying to hide weapons of mass destruction, and on the UN Security Council voting in favour of military action.
The law is often nuanced and complicated and Professor Sands was never given the chance to develop the argument held by most international lawyers - that the war was illegal.
Paxman is no longer intereted in seeking out truths - he is more interested in making combative television and avoiding looking ignorant. Put him out to grass. Please.
Complain about this post