This is different because Erdogan had already pushed through quite a few reforms and had, by all accounts, removed much of the old guard of Generals and replaced them with loyalists. If this coup is widespread, it means either some of the Generals aren't as loyal to Erdogan as he thought, or that they've been removed from the equation. This is beginning to sound less like a classic revolt of the Turkish Generals, and more like a revolt of the Turkish Colonels, more of an almost Latin American style coup.
From what I understand, Erdogan is out of the country, so clearly they timed this to prevent him from being up to directly marshal his forces. But it's still not clear as to whether this is a faction of the Army, or the bulk of it. From what I gather, the head of the Armed Forces has been detained, so it does sound like a large portion of the Army is backing the coup.
Something had to give sooner or later. Erdogan had flushed out most of the old guard, but there were likely a lot of mid-rank officers left who probably had pretty strong feelings about AKP. The Army has long viewed itself as the guarantors of Ataturk's reforms, and they've taken out uppety governments before. But to have this happen while ISIS is still merely dancing about Syria and Northern Iraq, and with Syria still a bloody mess, and with refugees flooding the country, well, this is a pretty unique set of circumstances.
The City doesn't sell cars. It sells financial products, and right now it has unfettered access to do so in the EU. If it cannot negotiate that, then many banks and other financial institutions will get up and leave London, or at least heavily downgrade their presence.
No, Libertarians are either greedy sociopaths or retards. Societies much beyond hunter gatherer require government and taxation to function, and anyone who thinks differently is just a plan fucking moron.
There is a punishment. If a cabinet minister were to openly revolt against the Government, and did not resign, then the Prime Minister would advise the Queen (or Governor General in Commonwealth Realms, or President in parliamentary republics) to have the cabinet minister dismissed.
And it should be noted that even after someone is left Cabinet, they are still bound by their oaths, and cannot reveal the matters that were discussed while they were members of cabinet.
Which is why Davis will have to negotiate free movement. It's the only way to save the City, one of Britain's major economic engines. May has a rather black sense of humor, not to mention that she intends to make the chief Tory Eurosceptics abandon every position they ever held. She is going to make them not only pay for Brexit, but make them justify all the steps that need to be taken to repair as much damage as possible.
Actually, what European ministers is said is that Britain cannot expect open access to Europe without free movement, which, of course was one of the chief objects of the Leave camp's ire. Now it will have to be the chief Tory leaders of Leave who will have to negotiate access to European markets, and likely have to accept free movement with only nominal concessions from the EU. In other words, as everyone expected, Britain will now, like Norway, have to accept the most important facets of the Common Market, but has given up any role in shaping the underlying policies, and it will be Brexiters who will have to inform the Eurosceptics.
No wonder Nigel Farage left UKIP. Once the UKIPers find out he sold them all an absolute load of bollocks, they'll want his head.
No, economics does not show that. Economics shows that cooperation coupled with some promise of profit can enhance enterprises, but both economics and psychology show where greed becomes the primary motivator, people begin to behave in fundamentally immoral ways.
No, the translation is "Have you actually tried doing anything at all, rather than impotently whining on the Internet about how the Establishment is screwing you over, and concocting conspiracy theories whose only real purpose is to convince yourself that your apathy is a rational choice.
Have you ever written a letter to your elected representative? Have you ever got like-minded citizens in your area together to petition other citizens in the area for letter writing campaigns or petitions, or to seek meetings with elected representatives at whatever level of government you're having issues with?
It's so much easier to go on the Internet, mask your laziness and apathy in the form of grand conspiracies about the Man keeping you down.
There is sound logic behind the putting of the chief surviving Brexiteers in senior positions. First of all, May, as a Remainer, is giving them the responsibility to implement that which they convinced a majority of voters to vote for. The intent behind is to heal the deep rifts in the Conservative Party. Everyone knows some form of free movement, like the so-called Norway model, is going to have to be a feature of Britain maintaining open access to the EU (this is particularly true of the City, where the inability to work within the EU financial system freely would likely see a great deal of the City migrate over to the Continent). It will be David Davis, one of the main Brexiters, who will have to negotiate these matters, and forcing him to largely repudiate pretty much every significant Leave stance will be just deserts, not to mention to some extent protecting May from being seen as imposing a Remain agenda. The same goes for Leadsom, who is now responsible for having to either maintain subsidy levels to all this UK farmers who relied on EU subsidies, or explain to all and asunder how Brexit was perhaps not the best idea ever.
Boris Johnson is the best bit, however. He's managed to insult just about every important leader in the Western world, as well as Turkey's Recip Erdogan. His appointment as Foreign Minister means his first few weeks in the position will see his belly get fairly raw by having to crawl up to all those Germans, French, Belgians and others that his band of merry fools compared to Nazis. The intent here is twofold; first of all, she cannot trust Boris on the backbenches, where he's bound to stir up trouble, but she also needs to give him the opportunity to destroy himself, thus making a potential (maybe even inevitable) sacking far easier, and forever rendering him an impotent figure. And, despite his clown's attitude, he is known to have some ability, so maybe, once he's finished kissing ever one of Britain's Western allies' asses, he might even not do a bad job. And, in reality, over the years the Foreign Office's importance has dwindled to some extent, with Prime Minister's tending to manage the more important files, like relations with close allies, off their own desk.
This idea that taxes, or indeed any law, require every individual's consent is utterly absurd. First of all, it would make government completely unworkable.
But more to the point, what was meant by the Revolutionaries when they said "No taxation without representation", or in the Westminster tradition of "responsible government" wasn't that you didn't have to pay taxes, it was that no tax could be imposed without the consent of the GOVERNED. That doesn't mean that you, I and every other taxpayer get a veto on the taxes we'll pay, it means we elect representatives who will then create the taxes, and if we don't like the taxes being levied, then our right as citizens is to try to get people elected who will more closely align with our views on taxation matters.
Citizenship confers not only rights, but inherently it confers obligations. You have the right to vote for your representatives, but you have the obligation to abide by their lawful and constitutional powers to pass laws, including tax laws. If you feel you have been unjustly treated, you have the right to petition the government or to seek redress through the courts.
So there is no theft. You are taxed by people who a conferred the right to enact and collect taxes by the consent of the governed, which is you and all your fellow citizens collectively.
I think Americans at least get a little confused at how a Parliamentary system works (so, to, do a lot of Canadians, Brits, Australians and so forth, mind you). If a vote isn't a free vote, then MPs for each party are bound to vote in line with the party. If it is a crucial vote, like a confidence motion, then a three line whip will be used, and if an MP defies even that, well they can be expelled from their party. For a cabinet minister, however, it is even more severe. A cabinet minister must, on all government bills, whether they are free votes for all other MPs, support the government bill. This is a longstanding Westminster tradition, and if a cabinet minister cannot back a government bill or motion, then the cabinet minister must resign.
in addition cabinet ministers are bound not to reveal cabinet debates or the results of those debates. The Government in a Westminster Parliament must remain united, and if a cabinet minister simply cannot abide the decisions of Cabinet, again, they're only choice is to resign. This is not such a different arrangement from how the US cabinet works, and that was modeled on how the British government still at least partially functioned by the time of the American Revolution (although Westminster was well on its way to its modern form even then).
The reason for this dates far back in Westminster constitutional history. Up until the 18th century the King would name his cabinet, which would serve in His name. And so it still is. Why the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet are chosen from sitting MPs and Peers, they are sworn into the Privy Council (an older governing body of which the Cabinet is a part), and the deliberations of the Privy Council, be in effect advice to the Sovereign, are generally kept secret.
So the intent of this long-winded explanation is to state that you cannot judge Theresa May entirely by the votes she cast over the last six years. She was bound by practice and convention to side with her fellow Cabinet Ministers, and generally has not enjoyed the right to public criticize those Ministers (though during the 2010-2015 Coalition, that practice was often ignored in subtle and not so subtle ways). In fact, little enough is known of May's views, and a lot of British political observers are quoting a Rumsfeldism, she is a "known unknown".
When people start throwing around terms like "collectivism is dead" and "income tax is immoral", you know you're dealing with an ignorant Libertarian blowhard.
Pay your fucking taxes, asshole, and quit trying to get society to underwrite your greed. That's right, society. We're social animals, not a bunch of solo hunting predators. Unless, of course you're a sociopath, then Libertarianism is very attractive, because fucking morons buy into it, and fucking morons make the best prey.
And electing a vile racist buffoon just because you want to "shake things up" is like lighting your house on fire because you don't like the living room furniture.
Then Trump's perfect running mate. Between the two of them, they can create a cloud of incoherence so thick that no one will be able to tell what the hell they're talking about.
There's decades worth of evidence of the harm of second hand smoke. It isn't 1950 any more, Big Tobacco's "research" has long ago been debunked, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a government taking steps to protect people from harmful substances. Your right to smoke ends at my fucking lungs.
That's the more likely explanation. Anyone with any ambition, or anyone who doesn't want to go down in history as Trump's running mate (which would probably include 90% of all the possible picks) is not going to drink from this poisoned chalice.
Ah well, he's gone, along with all the other Brexiters, having ran away from the burning building, having set it on fire themselves. Now the country is in the hands of a Remainer, go figure.
Obstetrician 1: Get the EEG, the BP monitor, and the AVV. Obstetrician 2: And get the machine that goes 'ping!'. Obstetrician 1: And get the most expensive machine - in case the Administrator comes. Patient: What do I do? Obstetrician: Nothing, dear, you're not qualified. Hospital Administrator: Ah, I see you have the machine that goes 'ping!'. This is my favourite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to - that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account. [The doctors and onlookers applaud.] Hospital Administrator: Thank you, thank you. We try to do our best. Well, do carry on.
Slashdot Mirror
This is different because Erdogan had already pushed through quite a few reforms and had, by all accounts, removed much of the old guard of Generals and replaced them with loyalists. If this coup is widespread, it means either some of the Generals aren't as loyal to Erdogan as he thought, or that they've been removed from the equation. This is beginning to sound less like a classic revolt of the Turkish Generals, and more like a revolt of the Turkish Colonels, more of an almost Latin American style coup.
From what I understand, Erdogan is out of the country, so clearly they timed this to prevent him from being up to directly marshal his forces. But it's still not clear as to whether this is a faction of the Army, or the bulk of it. From what I gather, the head of the Armed Forces has been detained, so it does sound like a large portion of the Army is backing the coup.
Something had to give sooner or later. Erdogan had flushed out most of the old guard, but there were likely a lot of mid-rank officers left who probably had pretty strong feelings about AKP. The Army has long viewed itself as the guarantors of Ataturk's reforms, and they've taken out uppety governments before. But to have this happen while ISIS is still merely dancing about Syria and Northern Iraq, and with Syria still a bloody mess, and with refugees flooding the country, well, this is a pretty unique set of circumstances.
The City doesn't sell cars. It sells financial products, and right now it has unfettered access to do so in the EU. If it cannot negotiate that, then many banks and other financial institutions will get up and leave London, or at least heavily downgrade their presence.
No, Libertarians are either greedy sociopaths or retards. Societies much beyond hunter gatherer require government and taxation to function, and anyone who thinks differently is just a plan fucking moron.
There is a punishment. If a cabinet minister were to openly revolt against the Government, and did not resign, then the Prime Minister would advise the Queen (or Governor General in Commonwealth Realms, or President in parliamentary republics) to have the cabinet minister dismissed.
And it should be noted that even after someone is left Cabinet, they are still bound by their oaths, and cannot reveal the matters that were discussed while they were members of cabinet.
Which is why Davis will have to negotiate free movement. It's the only way to save the City, one of Britain's major economic engines. May has a rather black sense of humor, not to mention that she intends to make the chief Tory Eurosceptics abandon every position they ever held. She is going to make them not only pay for Brexit, but make them justify all the steps that need to be taken to repair as much damage as possible.
Actually, what European ministers is said is that Britain cannot expect open access to Europe without free movement, which, of course was one of the chief objects of the Leave camp's ire. Now it will have to be the chief Tory leaders of Leave who will have to negotiate access to European markets, and likely have to accept free movement with only nominal concessions from the EU. In other words, as everyone expected, Britain will now, like Norway, have to accept the most important facets of the Common Market, but has given up any role in shaping the underlying policies, and it will be Brexiters who will have to inform the Eurosceptics.
No wonder Nigel Farage left UKIP. Once the UKIPers find out he sold them all an absolute load of bollocks, they'll want his head.
No, economics does not show that. Economics shows that cooperation coupled with some promise of profit can enhance enterprises, but both economics and psychology show where greed becomes the primary motivator, people begin to behave in fundamentally immoral ways.
No, the translation is "Have you actually tried doing anything at all, rather than impotently whining on the Internet about how the Establishment is screwing you over, and concocting conspiracy theories whose only real purpose is to convince yourself that your apathy is a rational choice.
Have you ever written a letter to your elected representative? Have you ever got like-minded citizens in your area together to petition other citizens in the area for letter writing campaigns or petitions, or to seek meetings with elected representatives at whatever level of government you're having issues with?
It's so much easier to go on the Internet, mask your laziness and apathy in the form of grand conspiracies about the Man keeping you down.
There is sound logic behind the putting of the chief surviving Brexiteers in senior positions. First of all, May, as a Remainer, is giving them the responsibility to implement that which they convinced a majority of voters to vote for. The intent behind is to heal the deep rifts in the Conservative Party. Everyone knows some form of free movement, like the so-called Norway model, is going to have to be a feature of Britain maintaining open access to the EU (this is particularly true of the City, where the inability to work within the EU financial system freely would likely see a great deal of the City migrate over to the Continent). It will be David Davis, one of the main Brexiters, who will have to negotiate these matters, and forcing him to largely repudiate pretty much every significant Leave stance will be just deserts, not to mention to some extent protecting May from being seen as imposing a Remain agenda. The same goes for Leadsom, who is now responsible for having to either maintain subsidy levels to all this UK farmers who relied on EU subsidies, or explain to all and asunder how Brexit was perhaps not the best idea ever.
Boris Johnson is the best bit, however. He's managed to insult just about every important leader in the Western world, as well as Turkey's Recip Erdogan. His appointment as Foreign Minister means his first few weeks in the position will see his belly get fairly raw by having to crawl up to all those Germans, French, Belgians and others that his band of merry fools compared to Nazis. The intent here is twofold; first of all, she cannot trust Boris on the backbenches, where he's bound to stir up trouble, but she also needs to give him the opportunity to destroy himself, thus making a potential (maybe even inevitable) sacking far easier, and forever rendering him an impotent figure. And, despite his clown's attitude, he is known to have some ability, so maybe, once he's finished kissing ever one of Britain's Western allies' asses, he might even not do a bad job. And, in reality, over the years the Foreign Office's importance has dwindled to some extent, with Prime Minister's tending to manage the more important files, like relations with close allies, off their own desk.
Ah the religion of Libertarianism. As fantastical and absurd as Communism and Anarchism.
This idea that taxes, or indeed any law, require every individual's consent is utterly absurd. First of all, it would make government completely unworkable.
But more to the point, what was meant by the Revolutionaries when they said "No taxation without representation", or in the Westminster tradition of "responsible government" wasn't that you didn't have to pay taxes, it was that no tax could be imposed without the consent of the GOVERNED. That doesn't mean that you, I and every other taxpayer get a veto on the taxes we'll pay, it means we elect representatives who will then create the taxes, and if we don't like the taxes being levied, then our right as citizens is to try to get people elected who will more closely align with our views on taxation matters.
Citizenship confers not only rights, but inherently it confers obligations. You have the right to vote for your representatives, but you have the obligation to abide by their lawful and constitutional powers to pass laws, including tax laws. If you feel you have been unjustly treated, you have the right to petition the government or to seek redress through the courts.
So there is no theft. You are taxed by people who a conferred the right to enact and collect taxes by the consent of the governed, which is you and all your fellow citizens collectively.
I think Americans at least get a little confused at how a Parliamentary system works (so, to, do a lot of Canadians, Brits, Australians and so forth, mind you). If a vote isn't a free vote, then MPs for each party are bound to vote in line with the party. If it is a crucial vote, like a confidence motion, then a three line whip will be used, and if an MP defies even that, well they can be expelled from their party. For a cabinet minister, however, it is even more severe. A cabinet minister must, on all government bills, whether they are free votes for all other MPs, support the government bill. This is a longstanding Westminster tradition, and if a cabinet minister cannot back a government bill or motion, then the cabinet minister must resign.
in addition cabinet ministers are bound not to reveal cabinet debates or the results of those debates. The Government in a Westminster Parliament must remain united, and if a cabinet minister simply cannot abide the decisions of Cabinet, again, they're only choice is to resign. This is not such a different arrangement from how the US cabinet works, and that was modeled on how the British government still at least partially functioned by the time of the American Revolution (although Westminster was well on its way to its modern form even then).
The reason for this dates far back in Westminster constitutional history. Up until the 18th century the King would name his cabinet, which would serve in His name. And so it still is. Why the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet are chosen from sitting MPs and Peers, they are sworn into the Privy Council (an older governing body of which the Cabinet is a part), and the deliberations of the Privy Council, be in effect advice to the Sovereign, are generally kept secret.
So the intent of this long-winded explanation is to state that you cannot judge Theresa May entirely by the votes she cast over the last six years. She was bound by practice and convention to side with her fellow Cabinet Ministers, and generally has not enjoyed the right to public criticize those Ministers (though during the 2010-2015 Coalition, that practice was often ignored in subtle and not so subtle ways). In fact, little enough is known of May's views, and a lot of British political observers are quoting a Rumsfeldism, she is a "known unknown".
Oh my, big tough Internet Libertarian warrior.
Jesus, why do these types always end up being such insignificant pieces of dirt, little men with little minds.
When people start throwing around terms like "collectivism is dead" and "income tax is immoral", you know you're dealing with an ignorant Libertarian blowhard.
Pay your fucking taxes, asshole, and quit trying to get society to underwrite your greed. That's right, society. We're social animals, not a bunch of solo hunting predators. Unless, of course you're a sociopath, then Libertarianism is very attractive, because fucking morons buy into it, and fucking morons make the best prey.
It's always fun hearing from disgruntled investors.
"Curse you, thermodynamics! I'll get you next time." (jumps into perpetual motion flying machine and plummets to earth)
You're not using the right toupee.
Trump is the fucking elite.
And electing a vile racist buffoon just because you want to "shake things up" is like lighting your house on fire because you don't like the living room furniture.
Now if he could only actually raise some funds. And by that I mean not threaten lawsuits.
Then Trump's perfect running mate. Between the two of them, they can create a cloud of incoherence so thick that no one will be able to tell what the hell they're talking about.
There's decades worth of evidence of the harm of second hand smoke. It isn't 1950 any more, Big Tobacco's "research" has long ago been debunked, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a government taking steps to protect people from harmful substances. Your right to smoke ends at my fucking lungs.
That's the more likely explanation. Anyone with any ambition, or anyone who doesn't want to go down in history as Trump's running mate (which would probably include 90% of all the possible picks) is not going to drink from this poisoned chalice.
Ah well, he's gone, along with all the other Brexiters, having ran away from the burning building, having set it on fire themselves. Now the country is in the hands of a Remainer, go figure.
Obstetrician 1: Get the EEG, the BP monitor, and the AVV.
Obstetrician 2: And get the machine that goes 'ping!'.
Obstetrician 1: And get the most expensive machine - in case the Administrator comes.
Patient: What do I do?
Obstetrician: Nothing, dear, you're not qualified.
Hospital Administrator: Ah, I see you have the machine that goes 'ping!'. This is my favourite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to - that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
[The doctors and onlookers applaud.]
Hospital Administrator: Thank you, thank you. We try to do our best. Well, do carry on.