Morning Ed: Europe {2016.11.03.Th}

/ November 3, 2016 in Morning Edition #

Tony Blair is probably not the best spokesman for Brexit-blocker, though many believe he’s still more electable than Corbyn.

#NeverCorbyn

It appears that Bregret is finally starting to set in, just a bit.

Meanwhile, Daniel Korski looks at what Remain did wrong.

And the banks are making their plans, vultures are circling, but Sweden offers an olive branch.

While everyone’s eyes are on Britain, the EU might should be more worried about Angela Merkel’s potential departure.

I am a bit iffy on Britain’s libel laws in general, and I’m not sure the newspaper is the proper target, but this nonetheless pleases me. The level of truthiness involved in some of this is downright Trumpian.

Robert Colvile explores what we can learn about refugees from the “Calais Jungle“


Editor-in-Chief
Home Page Twitter Google+ Pinterest 

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter. ...more →

Recent Posts:

Maintenance From Roughly 8-10am EST TomorrowNancy Pelosi For The WinWe Are Experiencing Some Technical Difficulties
[archive]
Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

Related posts

53 thoughts on “Morning Ed: Europe {2016.11.03.Th}”

  1. Blair: On another blog, a poster pointed out that voters tend to grow tired of popular politicians after about 8 to 10 years. Blair had his eight to ten years, so British voters do not want more of him.

    Corbyn: It would take something that makes the Conservatives look very bad to make Corbyn electable and even than it might not work. Corbyn represents what Saul calls the failure mode of the political party, when the party’s members believe in it’s plank but the rest of the electorate isn’t buying it one bit. Labour has been struggling with the United Kingdom not being a country filled with starry-eyed leftist idealists since 1979.

    The Remain article goest to an article about France’s President.

    I’m disappointed that the plan to attract London’s businesses does not involve magnets.

    British courts never eviscerated libel laws like the Supreme Court did in the United States in the name of freedom of speech. Its also generally the defendant’s burden to show that their statements were true rather than the plaintiff’s burden to show that they were false like it is in the United States. The reason why the British are famously polite is because failing to do so can get quite expensive.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    Reply
     

  2. Calais Jungle: I do like the idea of “industrial or enterprise zones: still cordoned off from the rest of society, but behind barriers that are economically permeable.” But I think the gov’ts first need to figure out whether or not they are going to let these people stay long term.

    Of course, one could stop meddling in areas of the world and creating the problems of refugees in the first place, but that option seems to elude our glorious leaders.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    Reply
     

  3. A European country is launching an invasion of another country, and this is what links you’ve got?
    Shame on you for not paying attention to world affairs.
    Shame on Americans for being too obsessed with their own election…

      Quote  Link

    Report

    Reply
     

  7. Since Cosby has come up, Owen has become interested in the show “Little Bill”. We were “gifted” a DVD from someone who was clearing off their shelves. There is an episode of the show on it. It is actually a really good show. But… Bill Cosby. It’s okay for him to still watch it, right?

      Quote  Link

    Report

    Reply
     
    • to Kazzy

      The eternal question.

      “This artist was horrible. Should I be allowed to enjoy zher art?”

      On one level, you have an out if you run with “if I buy it used, Cosby won’t see a cent”. This will allow you to enjoy a whole bunch of stuff. You have another if you wait for the artist to die before you purchase the art in question. (Bonus for those who want to listen to Jimi Hendrix!)

      If you require that your artists must be moral exemplars, I could point you to something like this. But, then again, I was raised in a household where we listened to Sandi Patty and not Amy Grant because Amy Grant came across as a little too forward. When Sandi got divorced, wooo doggies. There were discussions about whether we needed to get rid of her albums.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      Reply
       
        • to Richard Hershberger

          There is something that feels greasy about enjoying the art of a monster.

          I wrote a short paragraph about an artist that most of us (here, anyway) would know of and then about zher relationship with another artist that ended up driving the other artist mad.

          If you didn’t know about this messed up story (and it is kinda messed up), that might result in you enjoying this artist’s art a lot less. And, lemme tell ya, you’ve enjoyed this artist’s art.

          I decided to erase the paragraph because I felt like I’d be destroying something and not creating something by telling you this story that happened more than a century ago between people who are long dead and the only thing that remains of their relationship are a bunch of pieces that people today still enjoy and say “golly, this artist was ahead of zher time.”

          Is anybody really curious about who the artist was? Do they wonder as they look at a work “I don’t know if I can enjoy this because I don’t know how this person treated zher significant other”?

          Are you going to wonder that the next time you find yourself pausing in a museum before something makes you stop and look… really, really look?

            Quote  Link

          Report

          Reply
           

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *