More appropiate would be the legal inability to resign from the house of commons, thus having to be appointed to a specific office of the crown which is incompatible with being a member of the commons.
There were arguments that the government should refuse Farage's appointment because he's doing it to stop the clock on investigation into his various financial dealings. While against constitutional law to decline such, it was discussed in similar situations in the past - fairly recently in fact for the same reason -- Henry Cadogan in 1842
On the subject of headwear in parliament, I quote the member for Hereford who yesterday in parliament said:
> How very different from the forthcoming by-election in Clacton, which appears to be a choice between a novelty comedy act with no real policies, and Count Binface. It is a long time since we had a count in the House of Commons, and when the time comes—as it surely will—we will have to leave to you, Mr Speaker, the delicate question of whether and how to suspend the rules on headgear in the Chamber for the new Member.
Which implies that the laws around headgear are at the behest of the Speaker.
There is precedent in electoral history for election of people dressed as a figure -- H'Angus the Monkey (a football mascott, not an actual monkey) was elected Mayor. However on the ballot paper his entry was
STUART DRUMMOND Independent
Where as Binface's is
Count BINFACE Count Binface Party
Given Farage received a mere 45% in 2024, and a unity candidate beat an incumbant mp who previosuly had 55% and was mired in a similar scandal back in 1997, it's not impossible.
It's a reference to the murder of Henry Nowak, a sad example of knife crime which exists in the uk, and of individual police officers who failed to render basic first aid.
The family not only lost their son, but then had to see his name used to further the global hatred of the farage types
> the collapse of society due to the ensuing refugee crises
This is what worries me.
At some point more northern facing countries will decide enough is enough and start mass genocide of any population attempting to flee.
Europe will be ok with just killing a few hundred million trying to flee in boats, and the eastern frontier is securable, especially with drones, but even with conscripts. Hell Ukraine has done a solid job on its own against an organised army on its doorstep.
America will act as a buffer for Canada and will have no problem with wiping out refugees. Argentina will be interesting but it's too small and isolated to matter globally.
The big global risk is that India and Pakistan have nukes and will be trying to flee into China and central Asia.
Setting aside refugees, far bigger risk for Europe isn't reurbishment of housing, it's tropical diseases in the south, it's the collapse of food security, and the general collapse of society as the economy falls over.
Depends if that war turns nuclear. Perhaps a few million will survive with sustinance living in areas like patagonia, new zealand, global population of nomadic tribes around the same level as pre-agricutural civilisation - say about 10k years ago
There's a lot of worry about the future, and has been since world-ending threats became apparent
However while apocalypse scenarios (Nuclear war, asteroid impact, AI powered biological warfare) are low likelihood, extreme impact, climate change is extreme likelihood and high impact, not just the immediate effect on places like Europe, Canada etc, but also from the conflicts that climate change will drive, which in turn may escalate to those extreme impact nuclear wars.
On a 5x5 matrix, grand extinction events would be a 5 for effect but a 1 for likelihood, putting them in a "medium-high" category
Climate change is a 3-4 on effect but a 4-5 o likelihood, putting them in a "very-high" risk category
And of course it will be used for advertising, creating massive externalities for barely any income for the land owner, but they won't care because its others that pay
Yes he does. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
If "Joe Bloggs" writes an article about how "antifa thugs" ejected him as a "legitimate journalist" from covering a DNC convention, when in actual fact he was a January 6th agitator who went in with a fake ID and tried to get back stage, he's not going to write the second part.
This outlet isn't widely known, it's reasonable to ask "is this something legitimate or some deranged muskovite on twitter". Had they been reporting for the Guardian or Al Jazzera that would be the initial level of legitimacy, as they weren't it's reasonable to ask "did this actually happen, did it happen like they say"
Just because a story matches your (and my) view of the world (that trump is a devastating danger to the world and to america that should have been in jail a decade ago) doesn't mean you can simply like/share/subscribe to any story which appears to fit that narrative
Now sure, a brief look around this site shows this isn't the typical youtuber/twitter shock-jock, but the question should be asked before you can establish the credentials of the reporter
> Though if this really happened as they say, it reflects very badly on Belgium as well.
Not so sure. If the security at the event said "these people are active threats to security", then its the police's job to remove the threat and then investigate.
However it should now be on those lying about it that made the accusation to prevent their evidence, and if that's not good enough then to revoke their diplomatic credentials.
If the event was a private function as it appeared to be, then removing them is fine, but from the report it sounds like more accusations were made then "these people are no longer allowed at our event", and like the boy who cried wolf, that's where the problem needs to be sorted.
Many blogs will omit key facts. For example you could write "I was booted out for asking a question" when in actual fact you'd broken in with some wire cutters and then proceeded to pour champagne over all the soft furnishings.
A credible reporter for a credible outlet writing a credible article won't, whether that's the Washignton Post, the Daily Telegraph, or Le Monde, or if it's BBC, RTL, Al Jazzera.
So it's always worth asking "is this a credible source". It used to be fairly easy, to be a journalist you had to have significant backing from a significant institution.