Jenny1

...I would see this as a 'win win' situation, whatever the outcome.

.....though it would be quite fun if Melania Trump brought down the Daily Mail. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38898530

It's a good point well made rahrahrah. And the follow through on both the Trump and Farage victories is, like their initiation, also primarily about sustaining the establishment (as per that Atlantic Monthly article I linked to). In the US, Trump is dependent on the ongoing support of a Republican Party which sees an opportunity to institute long cherished policies that wouldn't have been possible under a Democrat President. Without this support Trump would be unlikely to remain in office long. In the UK I see all government policy on Brexit since the referendum as being about keeping the Conservative Party intact and ensuring their victory at the next election. Long term thinking on national interest doesn't feature.

'Thirded' for Farmdrop. Very good produce and very good prices.

Others will have a more detailed and informed view. But I simply understood it that those implementing the Executive Order, as an innovation, have the onus on them to prove its legality. So if any serious judgement is made questioning that legality then a full case needs to be heard examining that Executive Order. Until that's done the EO is suspended.

Precisely. Which is where much of the danger lies.

But surely BrandNewGuy, unless you know the person well, you wouldn't be able to make the judgement. If a friend or relative who was assiduous in looking after sick family members, or volunteering, or any other act of charity, posted a message supportive of native Americans then it wouldn't count as 'virtue signalling' by your definition. If a stranger posts such a message, how can one possibly know if they're a generally helpful member of society or not? And thus how can you possibly define what they're doing as 'virtue signalling'? - I'm editing to apologise for sounding so adamant. But I do feel strongly about this issue. I worry, as others have noted, that many people use the phrase 'virtue signalling' to dismiss any deeply felt, positive opinion - and thus shut down debate. I don't mean to imply that you would fall into that category BrandNewGuy.

Well they might be able to - and they might not. But I agree with those who've suggested that it's a good idea to pop along for some tests. It's definitely worth a try. Sometimes of course it's just a matter of advancing years. We can't all be like my extraordinary god-father who was still doing round the world trips at 96!

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I will vote lib-dem again > having sworn I never would after the Melbourne > Grove fiasco. I think what that particular incident reinforced for me was that often it's a good idea to vote differently on national and local levels.

Thanks for posting the link rahrahrah. I think the 'Central Park Five' issue is particularly alarming.

But I wouldn't call that 'virtue signalling', would you uncleglen?

OK. I see BrandNewGuy. So that would mean someone saying something they don't actually believe, just to be approved of by their friends?

It may have something to do with the fact that the Goose Green roundabout is blocked on one side as they repair the water main there.

But Penguin68, do you really believe that approving of someone or something you agree with, if such approval doesn't cause risk to yourself, is in some way worthy of criticism or derision? And BrandNewGuy do you really think that stating your beliefs, in a context where it's not proven that they will have an impact on the world at large, is self indulgent and worthy of censure?

rjsmall Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > default to WTO > agreements. Hi rjsmall. But when you make the comparison, as I'm sure you have, between what those agreements would give us, and what we have now, doesn't the end result look so much like 'nothing', that it would make sense to call it that?

There we go. Legal process on the way thanks to Bob Ferguson, Attorney General, Washington State.

I hope this link will work https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/ to a long and interesting piece in The Atlantic Monthly

To my shame I'd never heard of Neil Postman. But this is an interesting article about the book he wrote in the 80s which to some extent predicted our current political landscape. More Aldous Huxley than George Orwell. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/02/amusing-ourselves-to-death-neil-postman-trump-orwell-huxley

One of the appealing things I found about New Zealand was the way in which people tended to get things mended, rather than replace them. And it was economically viable to do this. So when the zip on my nice rucksack gave out my friends immediately knew to take it to the local chap who made yacht sails and repaired anything remotely canvas. The bag's still going strong nine years later - and actually the zip the repair man put in was much better than the original. I suppose it's easy to understand why this would be the case in a remote country which has a long history of having to be self sufficient.

Was it in the 1970s when people first started talking about 'built in obsolescence'?

I've never tried the hog roast at the market - though it smells tempting. I'm more concerned about the rise/potential rise in prices of day to day food items. Butter seems to have set off at an inflationary gallop recently.....

....I guess the other option is that Trump tries to get all the existing laws amended. Not sure how hard that would be and also not sure if it would 'count' - trying to make his actions legal retrospectively.

That's very helpful ianr. So the case being currently brought by the American Civil Liberties Union is based on the fact that the executive order is in breach of a number of pieces of existing legislation including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. I'm no legal expert - but given what Trump has said the ACLU case appears unarguably strong, making the executive order illegal. I wonder if the legal process will have to 'play out' or if Trump will be persuaded to climb down before that happens.

I don't know what power congress has re executive orders I'm afraid. I'm sure the will would be there to challenge among many Republicans as well as Democrats - but I don't know what the process would be.

You'll probably have seen the case mentioned on the BBC website of the young woman studying veterinary medicine at Glasgow. She has an Iranian passport and went on holiday to Costa Rica with her boyfriend. Now they're not allowed to board the plane home because the flight goes via the US. Buying new tickets via Madrid will cost ?2600 which they can ill afford. As I understand it the judges are reacting to the individual situations that this executive order have created - not the 'constitutionality' of that order.