The book itself doesn't talk about Brexit, no, but if you read my comment I mentioned how the EU was planning on restricting the kind of activity the book describes.
With regards to campaigning, the point I'm making is that whenever campaigners like Jacob Rees-Mogg talk about "sovereignty", he's referring to what the book mentioned. Meanwhile, the people supporting Brexit think it's about UK sovereignty.
That wasn't what Brexiteers were campaigning for. They were going for the type of sovereignty in William Rees-Mogg's book "The Sovereign Individual", in which he defines one as someone who earns more than $200,000 a year (in 1990s money) and uses their wealth and influence to act above the laws of any nation. The EU stood to prevent that, so they pushed for the UK to leave - and duped a bunch of gullible fools into believing it was about them and "hour cuntry".
The sad thing is they pulled the same tricks again in 2019 to get Boris into 10 Downing St. Facebook ads targeted at people who would lap it up, things like showing bread lines and saying this is what Corbyn would have brought. Such ads excluded those that would challenge them and call out the lies, leaving people in a nice little echo chamber with no time to be corrected before they went to the polls.
Man I'm in London tonight. I balked at the Thai restaurant charging £7 for a pint of Singha - buy hey, that's a restaurant in London. I haven't found a pint cheaper since!!
Like back in 2010, when they campaigned on heating allowances for OAP's, which they didn't bother to action until the 2015 election - by which time most of the people who voted that way had already died off!
We recognise the importance of continually reducing our environmental impact and we are only one of a small number of UK airports to have achieved level four-plus under the airport carbon accreditation programme.
That statement kind of contradicts their application to increase their emissions. They're basically saying "we're pretty low on emissions, we can get away with being worse".
Furthermore this Airport Carbon Accreditation seems to be about offsetting carbon emissions, primarily by planting trees. This is really a bit of a farce, as the trees being planted are almost always monoculture tree farms - they're setting up a profitable business to try and say that their polluting business isn't so bad overall. Meanwhile, monoculture tree farms are terrible for biodiversity.
The highest level of their accreditation, Level 5, only requires "a commitment" to reducing "non-controlled" emissions - ie those produced by aircraft - by 2050.
Drones don't necessarily move that fast, I can't imagine this would be all that effective against fast moving targets that vary their speed. So it might catch a drone hovering, but it probably won't catch a 200mph racing drone going through its paces.
I don't think a wealth cap is necessary. Rather, we should look to US pre-Reagon - there was a 95% tax for earnings over $1 million, and Reagan said "If I get taxed 95% on my earnings for my next movie, I'm not going to make that movie. Then everyone else making that movie will be out of a job!" Nevermind the fact that, if they didn't have to pay him, the movie would have had far more money and been free to make something else. The workers would have had a job, the marketing may have been less effective but the overall commercial enterprise would be by and large unaffected.
Instead, we've got backhand deals. A common scandal story in the UK is an MP being paid a few £10,000s or maybe £100,000 - small fry compared to the US and their Super PAC's. However, the way the Tories have things set up is that there are 60 or so MP's who are on the party's payroll. All you have to do to write law in your favour is engage with one of them and donate to the party. The party will write a law, the whips will follow suit (just like they collectively voted against feeding children over Christmas during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic) and then the party will pay the MP that negotiated it a healthy bonus. Money is literally laundered through the party.
And the worst part is the Labour party have no plans on changing this. They just want their bite at the pie. The Tories stretch the standard for what MP's can get away with, Labour comes in and draws a line, then the Tories come back in and stretch it again.
Sack the fucking lot of them. We don't need "representatives" to go to Westminster and facetiously "vote on our behalf" anymore. A direct democracy, certainly once it's established, would be better than this.
The original petition was part of the process, sure, but the thing that clearly got through was the TV documentary. Also change.org is completely unofficial, I sort of feel like the government's petition website would be more appropriate, although at the same time that process is more about getting Parliament to discuss a matter (and also was pretty much gutted by the Tories since 2010).
As I said in my comment below, I think he would still refuse. In particular, justice has yet to be served and victims have yet to be indemnified to the tune of many thousands - even after the £75k payout from the government. The fact that the government is offering so much to every one of them points to just how much it hurt them. It's not like they would have offered more than the average loss.
So yeah, while I think he more than deserves it, I don't think he wants it.
Maybe, but I still think he would refuse. He's generally said that it isn't about him.
Also, it's not like justice has been achieved yet - or even ever will be. Many people are still out thousands, indemnifying them will take more than a £75k payout from the government.
The book itself doesn't talk about Brexit, no, but if you read my comment I mentioned how the EU was planning on restricting the kind of activity the book describes.
With regards to campaigning, the point I'm making is that whenever campaigners like Jacob Rees-Mogg talk about "sovereignty", he's referring to what the book mentioned. Meanwhile, the people supporting Brexit think it's about UK sovereignty.