Результат референдума должен соблюдаться!
— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) November 23, 2019
Результат референдума должен соблюдаться!
— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) November 23, 2019
Ivanka Trump tried to quote Alexis de Tocqueville.
“A decline of public morals in the United States will probably be marked by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crushing political adversaries or ejecting them from office.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835
— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) November 21, 2019
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."
Julius Caesar, 1655
— JRehling (@JRehling) November 22, 2019
Not only is that a bogus quote, but the Founders specifically understood the role of impeachment to prevent what your family has managed to do with a complicit and pliant GOP.
— lawhawk (@lawhawk) November 22, 2019
…this is not something Alexis de Tocqueville penned. The actual quote comes from a 1889 book, American Constitutional Law, Volume 1, by judge John Innes Clark Hare describing the necessity of impeachment, even as he argued it had been abused on President Andrew Johnson.
— DJ TrippyDawg (@craigstanford) November 22, 2019
Quote (with changed layout in order to improve readability) from Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835), Chapter VII: Political Jurisdiction In The United States, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm#link2HCH0015:
[…] But I will venture to affirm that it is precisely their mildness which renders the American laws most formidable in this respect.
We have shown that in Europe the removal of a functionary and his political interdiction are the consequences of the penalty he is to undergo, and that in America they constitute the penalty itself. The consequence is that in Europe political tribunals are invested with rights which they are afraid to use, and that the fear of punishing too much hinders them from punishing at all.
But in America no one hesitates to inflict a penalty from which humanity does not recoil. To condemn a political opponent to death, in order to deprive him of his power, is to commit what all the world would execrate as a horrible assassination; but to declare that opponent unworthy to exercise that authority, to deprive him of it, and to leave him uninjured in life and limb, may be judged to be the fair issue of the struggle.
But this sentence, which it is so easy to pronounce, is not the less fatally severe to the majority of those upon whom it is inflicted. Great criminals may undoubtedly brave its intangible rigor, but ordinary offenders will dread it as a condemnation which destroys their position in the world, casts a blight upon their honor, and condemns them to a shameful inactivity worse than death.
The influence exercised in the United States upon the progress of society by the jurisdiction of political bodies may not appear to be formidable, but it is only the more immense. It does not directly coerce the subject, but it renders the majority more absolute over those in power; it does not confer an unbounded authority on the legislator which can be exerted at some momentous crisis, but it establishes a temperate and regular influence, which is at all times available. If the power is decreased, it can, on the other hand, be more conveniently employed and more easily abused.
By preventing political tribunals from inflicting judicial punishments the Americans seem to have eluded the worst consequences of legislative tyranny, rather than tyranny itself; and I am not sure that political jurisdiction, as it is constituted in the United States, is not the most formidable weapon which has ever been placed in the rude grasp of a popular majority. When the American republics begin to degenerate it will be easy to verify the truth of this observation, by remarking whether the number of political impeachments augments.*d
[ See Appendix, N.
[The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868—which was resorted to by his political opponents solely as a means of turning him out of office, for it could not be contended that he had been guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and he was in fact honorably acquitted and reinstated in office—is a striking confirmation of the truth of this remark.—Translator’s Note, 1874.]] […]
There is no question upon which the American constitutions agree more fully than upon that of political jurisdiction. All the constitutions which take cognizance of this matter, give to the House of Delegates the exclusive right of impeachment; excepting only the constitution of North Carolina, which grants the same privilege to grand juries. (Article 23.) Almost all the constitutions give the exclusive right of pronouncing sentence to the Senate, or to the Assembly which occupies its place.
The only punishments which the political tribunals can inflict are removal, or the interdiction of public functions for the future. There is no other constitution but that of Virginia (p. 152), which enables them to inflict every kind of punishment.
※ The crimes which are subject to political jurisdiction are, in the federal constitution (Section 4, Art. 1); in that of Indiana (Art. 3, paragraphs 23 and 24); of New York (Art. 5); of Delaware (Art. 5), high treason, bribery, and other high crimes or offences.
※ In the Constitution of Massachusetts (Chap. I, Section 2); that of North Carolina (Art. 23); of Virginia (p. 252), misconduct and maladministration.
※ In the constitution of New Hampshire (p. 105), corruption, intrigue, and maladministration.
※ In Vermont (Chap. 2, Art. 24), maladministration.
※ In South Carolina (Art. 5); Kentucky (Art. 5); Tennessee (Art. 4); Ohio (Art. 1, 23, 24); Louisiana (Art. 5); Mississippi (Art. 5); Alabama (Art. 6); Pennsylvania (Art. 4), crimes committed in the non-performance of official duties.
※ In the States of Illinois, Georgia, Maine, and Connecticut, no particular offences are specified.
This was charming, no doubt; but they shortly found out
That the Captain they trusted so well
Had only one notion for crossing the ocean,
And that was to tingle his bell.https://t.co/QMfZkL0mJ3https://t.co/KFJB0HMKON pic.twitter.com/4aL2v7RQsS
— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) November 22, 2019
Давай сделаем бре́кcит!
— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) November 22, 2019
As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!). They must, with Europe and others, watch over…
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2019
By now I think that there are stronger reasons for Trump's impeachment than the Ukraine issue. Today 800 IS fighters escaped from Kurdish prisons. Trump is a danger to the USA. The Republicans need to stop him now.
— Goetz Kluge (@Bonnetmaker) October 13, 2019
Footage of Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó and Ambassador Kristóf Szalay-Bobrovniczky leaving the Cabinet Office this morning at 11:05
Boris Johnson was holding an "Emergency" Cabinet meeting in the same building at the same time 🤔 pic.twitter.com/xLkcMAKIuO
— LondonResisters (@ResistersLondon) October 3, 2019
Hold your horses:
They clearly weren't trying to hide this – large delegation, diplomatic limos with flags (and the registration '1 HUN'!)
Surely this is a dead cat, with #CummingsOut name on the id tag?
Designed to fuel exactly this kind of speculation?
— Phil Waring #FBPE #StopTheCoup🎪🇬🇧🇪🇸🇪🇺🏳️🌈 (@Waringphilip) October 3, 2019
1/3 — Chris, you are wrong. The Supreme Court has more authority in this matter than you. The referendum was not legally binding, merely "advisory," according to a Supreme Court judgement in December 2016. https://t.co/tIeXFu2nbu
— Snark Sesquicentennial (@Snark150) October 4, 2019
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) June 14, 2018
Alex Salmond’s Amendment 16 (calling for a majority vote in each of England, Scotland, Wales and NI) to the Referendum Bill, was rejected in the debate almost precisely 3 years ago (16 June 2015) *on the basis* that it did “not make sense” because the referendum was advisory only pic.twitter.com/B87CAlFEgc
— Bella Vivat (Dr)🕷 ⚫️ #RevokeA50 #NHSLove #FBPE (@Bellavivat) June 14, 2018
I don’t know what stimulant he took for this.
the room next door – Boris Johnson at the UN pic.twitter.com/GKHyFUQwNh
— Michael Spicer (@MrMichaelSpicer) September 27, 2019
Ok, here we go:
Cocaine – sure as the sun will come up tomorrow – our PM has been indulging in Peruvian nose powder to such an extent he makes Keith Richards look like Mother Theresa. FFS.
— Mial Pagan #RevokeA50 #CummingsMustGo (@mialp) September 27, 2019
Downing Street No. 10 should be next.
I snuck around Parliament the other day, testing the toilets near MPs offices and the private bars, for cocaine for @VICEUK. it turns out it's not just Michael Gove who has been at it… nearly 50% of the loos had coke in them.https://t.co/j2Vo3LAdgl
— michael segalov (@MikeSegalov) June 26, 2019
Mr President, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, faithful late night audience.
It is customary for the British Prime Minister to come to this United Nations and pledge to advance our values and defend our rules, the rules of a peaceful world.
From protecting freedom of navigation in the Gulf
To persevering in the vital task of achieving a two-state solution to the conflict in the Middle East.
And of course I am proud to do all of these things.
But no-one can ignore a gathering force that is reshaping the future of every member of this Assembly.
There has been nothing like it in history
When I think of the great scientific revolutions of the past – print, the steam engine, aviation, the atomic age – I think of new tools that we acquired but over which we – the human race – had the advantage,
Which we controlled.
That is not necessarily the case in the digital age.
You may keep secrets from your friends, from your parents, your children, your doctor – even your personal trainer – but it takes real effort to conceal your thoughts from Google.
And if that is true today, in future there may be nowhere to hide.
Smart cities will pullulate with sensors, all joined together by the “internet of things”, bollards communing invisibly with lamp posts
So there is always a parking space for your electric car,
so that no bin goes unemptied, no street unswept,
and the urban environment is as antiseptic as a Zurich pharmacy.
But this technology could also be used to keep every citizen under round-the-clock surveillance.
A future Alexa will pretend to take orders.
But this Alexa will be watching you,
Clucking her tongue and stamping her foot
In the future, voice connectivity will be in every room and almost every object:
your mattress will monitor your nightmares; your fridge will beep for more cheese,
your front door will sweep wide the moment you approach, like some silent butler; your smart meter will go hustling – if its accord – for the cheapest electricity.
And every one of them minutely transcribing your every habit in tiny electronic shorthand,
Stored not in their chips or their innards – nowhere you can find it,
But in some great cloud of data that lours ever more oppressively over the human race
A giant dark thundercloud
waiting to burst
And we have no control over how or when the precipitation will take place
And every day that we tap on our phones or work on our ipads – as I see some of you doing now –
We not only leave our indelible spoor in the ether
But we are ourselves becoming a resource
Click by click, tap by tap.
Just as the carboniferous period created the indescribable wealth – leaf by decaying leaf – of hydrocarbons.
Data is the crude oil of the modern economy
And we are now in an environment where
We don’t know who should own these new oil fields
We don’t always know who should have the rights or the title to these gushers of cash
And we don’t know who decides how to use that data
Can these algorithms be trusted with our lives and hopes?
Should the machines – and only the machines – decide whether or not we are eligible for a mortgage or insurance
Or what surgery or medicines we should receive?
Are we doomed to a cold and heartless future in which computer says yes – or computer says no
With the grim finality of an emperor in the arena?
How do you plead with an algorithm? How do you get it to see the extenuating circumstances
And how do we know that the machines have not been insidiously programmed to fool us or even to cheat us?
We already use all kinds of messaging services that offer instant communication at minimal cost.
The same programmes, platforms, could also be designed for real-time censorship of every conversation, with offending words automatically deleted, indeed in some countries this happens today.
Digital authoritarianism is not, alas, the stuff of dystopian fantasy but of an emerging reality.
The reason I am giving this speech today is that the UK is one of the world’s tech leaders – and I believe governments have been simply caught unawares by the unintended consequences of the internet;
A scientific breakthrough more far-reaching in its everyday psychological impact than any other invention since Gutenberg
And when you consider how long it took for books to come into widespread circulation
The arrival of the internet is far bigger than print
It is bigger than the atomic age –
But it is like nuclear power in that it is capable of both good and harm – but of course it is not alone
As new technologies seem to race towards us from the far horizon
We strain our eyes as they come, to make out whether they are for good or bad – friends or foes?
AI – what will it mean?
Helpful robots washing and caring for an ageing population?
or pink eyed terminators sent back from the future to cull the human race?
What will synthetic biology stand for – restoring our livers and our eyes with miracle regeneration of the tissues, like some fantastic hangover cure?
Or will it bring terrifying limbless chickens to our tables.
Will nanotechnology help us to beat disease, or will it leave tiny robots to replicate in the crevices of our cells?
It is a trope as old as literature that any scientific advance is punished by the Gods
When Prometheus brought fire to mankind
In a tube of fennel, as you may remember, that Zeus punished him by chaining him to a tartarean crag while his liver was pecked out by an eagle
And every time his liver regrew the eagle came back and pecked it again
And this went on for ever – a bit like the experience of Brexit in the UK, if some of our parliamentarians had their way.
In fact it was standard poetic practice to curse the protos heuretes – the person responsible for any scientific or technical breakthrough
If only they had never invented the ship, then Jason would never have sailed to Colchis and all sorts of disasters would never have happened
And it is a deep human instinct to be wary of any kind of technical progress
In 1829 they thought the human frame would not withstand the speeds attained by Stephenson’s rocket
And there are today people today who are actually still anti-science.
A whole movement called the anti-Vaxxers, who refuse to acknowledge the evidence that vaccinations have eradicated smallpox
And who by their prejudices are actually endangering the very children they want to protect
And I totally reject this anti-scientific pessimism.
I am profoundly optimistic about the ability of new technology to serve as a liberator and remake the world wondrously and benignly,
indeed in countless respects technology is
already doing just that.
Today, nanotechnology – as I mentioned earlier – is revolutionising medicine by designing robots a fraction of the size of a red blood cell,
capable of swimming through our bodies, dispensing medicine and attacking malignant cells like some Star Wars armada
Neural interface technology is producing a new generation of cochlear implants,
allowing the gift of hearing to people who would not otherwise be able to hear the voices of their children.
A London technology company has worked out how to help the blind to navigate more freely with nothing more than an app on their smartphones –
New technologies, produced in Britain, helping the deaf to hear and the blind to see.
And we used to think that printing was something you did to run off a boarding card
Now a British company has used 3D printing to make an engine capable of blasting a rocket into space.
In African countries, millions of people without bank accounts can now transfer money using a simple app;
they can buy solar energy and leap in one transaction from no electricity to green power.
And new advances are making renewable energy ever cheaper, aiding our common struggle against climate change.
Our understanding of the natural world is being transformed by genome sequencing.
The discovery of the very essence of life itself
The secret genetic code that animates the spirit of every living being.
And allows medical breakthroughs the like of which we have never known.
Treatments tailored to the precise genetic makeup of the individual.
So far, we have discovered the secrets of less than 0.3 percent of complex life on the planet,
Think what we will achieve when – and it is a matter of when – we understand 1 or 2 percent, let alone 5 or 10 percent.
But how we design the emerging technologies behind these breakthroughs – and what values inform their design –will shape the future of humanity. That is my point to you tonight my friends, my Excellencies –
At stake is whether we bequeath an Orwellian world, designed for censorship, repression and control,
or a world of emancipation, debate and learning, where technology threatens famine and disease, but not our freedoms.
Seven decades ago, this General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with no dissenting voices,
uniting humanity for the first and perhaps only time behind one set of principles.
And our declaration – our joint declaration – upholds “freedom of opinion and expression”,
the “privacy” of “home or correspondence,”
and the right to “seek…and impart information and ideas”.
Unless we ensure that new technology reflects this spirit, I fear that our declaration will mean nothing and no longer hold.
So the mission of the United Kingdom and all who share our values must be to ensure that emerging technologies are designed from the outset for freedom, openness and pluralism,
with the right safeguards in place to protect our peoples.
Month by month, vital decisions are being taken in academic committees, company boardrooms and industry standards groups.
They are writing the rulebooks of the future, making ethical judgements, choosing what will or will not be rendered possible.
Together, we need to ensure that new advances reflect our values by design.
There is excellent work being done in the EU, the Commonwealth, and of course the UN,
which has a vital role in ensuring that no country is excluded from the wondrous benefits of this technology, and the industrial revolution it is bringing about.
But we must be still more ambitious.
We need to find the right balance between freedom and control; between innovation and regulation; between private enterprise and government oversight.
We must insist that the ethical judgements inherent in the design of new technology are transparent to all.
And we must make our voices heard more loudly in the standards bodies that write the rules.
Above all, we need to agree a common set of global principles to shape the norms and standards that will guide the development of emerging technology.
So – here’s the good news – I invite you next year to a summit in London, a wonderful city, where by the way it is not raining 94 per cent of the time, and where at one stage – when I was Mayor of London – we discovered that we had more Michelin starred restaurants even than Paris. The French somehow rapidly recovered – by a process that I wasn’t quite sure was entirely fair. But we still have by far, in the UK, by far the biggest tech sector – fintech, biotech, meditech, nanotech, green tech – every kind of tech – in London – the biggest tech sector anywhere in Europe, perhaps half a million people working in tech alone.
I hope you will come there, where we will seek to assemble the broadest possible coalition to take forward this vital task
Building on all that the UK can contribute to this mission as a global leader in ethical and responsible technology.
If we master this challenge – and I have no doubt that we can – then we will not only safeguard our ideals,
we will surmount the limits that once constrained humanity and conquer the perils that once ended so many lives.
Together, we can vanquish killer diseases, eliminate famine,
protect the environment and transform our cities.
Success will depend, now as ever, on freedom, openness and pluralism,
the formula that not only emancipates the human spirit, but releases the boundless ingenuity and inventiveness of mankind,
and which, above all, the United Kingdom will strive to preserve and advance.
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your kind attention.