Open mike 17/09/2011

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, September 17th, 2011 - 68 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

68 comments on “Open mike 17/09/2011 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. toad 1
    17 September 2011 at 7:34 am

    Labour cozying up to Nats to further gut Emissions Trading Scheme:

    Although Labour believes National’s approach to industrial emissions is imperfect, we are willing to go along with it due to the desirability of settling across both main parties.

    Disgraceful.

    • Pete george 1.1
      17 September 2011 at 8:13 am

      Settling across the two biggest parties representing most people sounds like a sensible idea to me.

      Do you think a small minority should dictate what should happen?

      • toad 1.1.1
        17 September 2011 at 8:15 am

        Do you think a majority support increased government subsidies to polluters?

        • Pete George 1.1.1.1
          17 September 2011 at 8:39 am

          I can’t see anything about subsidies to polluters. The TV3 article leads with:

          “The Government’s going to reduce the cost to consumers of the Emissions Trading Scheme.”

          Is that what you don’t like?

          • toad 1.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2011 at 8:51 am

            The reduction in the cost to consumers will mean an increase in the cost to taxpayers. Someone has to pay.

            • Pete George 1.1.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2011 at 8:56 am

              And an increase in costs to businesses would result in an increase in costs to consumers too. Someone has to pay.

              • Lanthanide …
                17 September 2011 at 10:22 am

                “Someone has to pay.”

                Yes, and the whole point of the ETS is that the polluting businesses pay. Clearly they largely pass this on to their customers, but some will come out of their profits too. Anyway, it means higher prices on the shelf, which opens them up to competition – if their competitor can produce similar products but with significantly less pollution, then they can charge a lower price and grab the market share, eventually pushing the polluting company out of business if they don’t adapt.

                If you simply give the polluters a free ride and put the cost on the tax payer, then the businesses have no incentive to reduce their pollution, and yet the end-consumer still ends up paying (via their tax dollars being flushed down the toilet paying polluters, instead of put too good use building hospitals and schools etc).

                Thus voiding the whole point of the exercise in the first place.

              • Mutante …
                17 September 2011 at 6:36 pm

                Tell you what Pete, we’ll just ditch the necessary for the “sensible” and when the sea is lapping at our doors we’ll use your tedious gob as a bailing bucket.

          • mik e 1.1.1.1.2
            17 September 2011 at 11:56 am

            No wonder your party is supporting the borrow and hope no one pays now joke.$76billion you and your political yes man wig worm is conning the public .$4.7 billion in interest payments per year no we are not increasing the cost to the public absolute BS propaganda.This road NatUactmaori coalition is going to end up like Greece not the same type that the wigworm uses for his hair or to slide around on.

      • mikesh 1.1.2
        17 September 2011 at 9:45 am

        “Do you think a small minority should dictate what should happen?”

        This is beside the point. The question is whether the the Labour party should have supported the ETS given its imperfections. Was cross-party agreement really necessary on this issue?

      • AAMC 1.1.3
        17 September 2011 at 11:49 am

        “Do you think a small minority should dictate what should happen?”

        I thought that defined the modern age, are you suggesting a small minority don’t dictate what happens PG?

        http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

      • Draco T Bastard 1.1.4
        17 September 2011 at 12:07 pm

        Settling across the two biggest parties representing most people sounds like a sensible idea to me.

        When a radical solution is required compromising upon that solution is not sensible or desirable.

  2. logie97 2
    17 September 2011 at 7:54 am

    During the anthems at RWC last night, there were 23 in the line up. Notice the camera carefully panned to avoid the 23rd singing the reo version and appeared to be perfectly managed to reach him as they sang the line “God defend New Zealand”. Nice one guys except I understood that he is a non believer …

    • marsman 2.1
      17 September 2011 at 8:14 am

      Maybe he was just giving us a warning. What was he doing in the line-up anyway, oh of course, photo-op.

      • Carol 2.1.1
        17 September 2011 at 8:22 am

        It sickened me to see that slippery pretender lining up in black beside the ABs for the anthem. Was it to do with the dedication of the match to the losses from the quakes in Christchurch and Japan? Or is it set to be a fixture of the AB ppearnaces at the RWC?

        But Shonkey as AB annabe (unable to sing Te Reo version of the anthem) is weakening my support of the ABs. I ended up only watching a bit of the match as it was looking early on to be a walk-over anyway. And I no longer am keen to see the ABs in all their games. So now I’m considering supporting any opponents to the AB – especially if the Great Pretender continues to hijack ABs’ appearances for electioneering photo ops.

        • higherstandard 2.1.1.1
          17 September 2011 at 8:41 am

          So to precis your comment………. ‘wah wah wah I hate John Key I’m spitting my dummy.’

          It was a sign of respect in relation to those lost and injured in the earthquakes that a NZ and japanese dignitary were on the field during the minutes silence and National anthems.

          • Carol 2.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2011 at 8:57 am

            No, HS, it’s more like the last straw. I’m already getting sick of the hype around the ABs – I have always liked watching them play in the past, but I enjoy the games not the extraneous over-donre hype.

            And I’m already getting sick of the way Shonkey is using the ABs and RWC for the photo ops with the up-coming election in mind. e.g. the embarrassing presentation of black jerseys to the leaders at the Pacific Forum, the nationalistic sledging of Julia Gillard, ministers behaving like bad-mannered, boorish macho rugby spectators, and, above all, JK being there smiling and waving for the successes and taking no responsibility for failures: e.g saying in advance that people will eat their criticisms of the Cloud, then being nowhere to be sen with the opening night failures.

            By the way, I was bemused by Hawaiian JK’s visible attendance at the USA vs Russia match – where does his allegiance really lie? I enjoyed that match – closely fought, absorbing.

            PS: I’m prepared to give the benefit of the doubt that last night’s JK singing photo op was to do with quake remembrance – as I indicated in my first comment above (albeit while being slightly opportunistic), but I hope it won’t become a feature of all ABs’ games that JK, slips into photo op mode.

            • higherstandard 2.1.1.1.1.1
              17 September 2011 at 9:25 am

              “By the way, I was bemused by Hawaiian JK’s visible attendance at the USA vs Russia match – where does his allegiance really lie? I enjoyed that match – closely fought, absorbing.”

              The russian deputy PM was here for trade talks … I expect that was a good enough reason for the NZ PM to front and host him.

              http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/key-and-zhukov-talk-trade-watch-rugby-4404678

              I’m not arguing whether or not Key is a dick but you need to take your blinkers off and imagine someone else in his place at these events to test whether it is reasonable before screeching your outrage.

              • Carol …
                17 September 2011 at 9:50 am

                Yes, I have imagined others… I imagined other NZ PMs would have been in the stands, or more to the side of the ABs …. proceedings rather than lining up like a 23rd AB.

                “Screeching”? Really? Sounds like quite an emotive judgment…. emotive language that doesn’t match my sentiments.

                Trade delegation? Hmmm… so we should expect JK at a lot of other countries matches?

              • gobsmacked …
                17 September 2011 at 10:35 am

                @Higher Standard

                I have no problem at all with the Prime Minister – any Prime Minister – showing respect at a minute’s silence for those who were lost. That’s entirely appropriate.

                But that’s not what happened, is it?

                Just before the minute’s silence, Key and Mori (from Japan) are introduced. So what does Key do?

                He smiles, and he waves. Yes, literally. No need to take my word for it, just watch the footage.

                It was supposed to be a moment of reflection, of remembrance. That’s what it should have been. But Key tries to turn it into something else.

                You ask that we “‘imagine someone else in his place at these events”. Fair call. That’s always the basic test of objectivity – put somebody else in his shoes.

                So, imagine Obama at a 9/11 memorial. Imagine any leader. Clark, or Bolger, or anyone you care to name. Imagine a right-wing bastard like John Howard, if you want.

                See any waving to the crowd? At a minute’s silence? Answer: never. They never have, and they never would.

                Key’s behaviour was crass and shameless, and we should be ashamed.

                • Joe Bloggs …
                  17 September 2011 at 1:26 pm

                  OMG,

                  John Key smiled and waved to a crowd that cheered him when he walked onto the field – how crass and shameless is that?

                  Not at all … must be a slow news day…

                  • gobsmacked …
                    17 September 2011 at 1:50 pm

                    So why was he walking onto the field, Joe Bloggs?

                    What was the ostensible reason for him – and his Japanese guest – being there?

                    Think about it.

                    • Joe Bloggs …
                      17 September 2011 at 2:54 pm

                      FFS…

                      if he wasn’t there, you’d probably be flagellating Key for not visibly paying his respects to the tragedies in Christchurch and Japan.

                      if he was there but didn’t acknowledge the crowds, you’d probably be flagellating Key for being aloof.

                      Key WAS there, the crowds CHEERED him, he ACKNOWLEDGED their greeting..It’s called the human face of politics. Get over it.

          • freedom 2.1.1.1.2
            17 September 2011 at 11:06 am

            so if the idea was meant to be, that joining the players was a sign of respect for the victims of the disasters, why did The PM not express proper respect ( or even basic manners) by waiting for the Japanese official to be in position before proceedings got underway?

            The Japanese official was forced to run behind the staging area to get into his position as the Anthems begun and John Key had already slithered into position beside the AB’s

            • Tigger 2.1.1.1.2.1
              17 September 2011 at 12:04 pm

              Key politicized the All Blacks in this election period. It was creepy and pathetic.

            • Tigger 2.1.1.1.2.2
              17 September 2011 at 12:09 pm

              Key politicized the All Blacks in this election period. It was a total WTF moment. And not knowing the anthem was comedy gold. And john, no about of standing with burly rugby players will ever make up for your mincing catwal faux pas.

            • Tigger 2.1.1.1.2.3
              17 September 2011 at 12:11 pm

              Key politicized the All Blacks in this election period. It was a total WTF moment. And not knowing the anthem was comedy gold. There was no reason for him to be with the team. No reason. And john, no about of standing with burly rugby players will ever make up for your mincing catwal faux pas.

  3. Janice 3
    17 September 2011 at 9:09 am

    I heard four calls to remove more of our legal rights yesterday.
    The first was the police calling for legislation confirming their “right” to conduct covert surveillance on private property after the Supreme Court refused their use of “evidence” gathered that way in the “Tuhoe Terrorist” raids.
    The second was the use of the Guthrie blood samples for research; it didn’t say whether it would be limited to medical research or used by law enforcement research. I understand these samples have been taken from all babies born in hospitals since the early ‘60s. (Another reason for home births?)
    The third was Steven Joyce’s cancelling the consent process for Transmission Gully to cut down on submissions, which would only “hold up the process” so they would be ignored anyway. This is another of his highways of national significance.
    The fourth was Simple Simon’s changes to the law (I can’t remember the actual name) act. He has made some minor changes and has now got support for things like limiting jury trials and removing the right to silence among no doubt others that we will only hear about when the legislation is tabled under urgency next week, as he hasn’t got much time to get it through before Parliament winds up. I wonder if in the negotiations pressure was put on ACT over Epsom and PD in Oharia to get them to finally agree to the changes.
    Is it a coincidence that all these were released on a Friday when the focus was on the RWC.
    They also now know that they can use their special legislation for Cerra and the RWC, so watch for more of this “crisis” legislation if they get in after the election.

    • freedom 3.1
      17 September 2011 at 12:18 pm

      Amongst the new Police State decrees is a recent bylaw Auckland has passed banning the distribtuion of political or other special interest material in a public space. There are people looking at how this happened and most importantly WHY? They have no answers as yet due to numerous people refusing to answer questions or forward requested information. There is no clear description of how free newspapers or election material are exempt but it appears to be Authority blatantly silencing dissent, and restricting the ability of ‘free’ people to educate each other.

      It is just one more act in the ongoing tragedy we are performing as an ensemble cast of four million. The Death of Democracy, a three year tale of corruption, deceipt, avarice and hate.

      No newspaper in NZ (that i am aware of) has had the balls to touch the story either !

  4. tsmithfield 4
    17 September 2011 at 9:58 am

    In the last article here on the Roy Morgan poll it was argued that because there was little change it suggested that voters weren’t taking much notice.

    Does the latest result suggest that voters now are starting to take notice, and that it is bad news for Labour, especially this close to the election.

  5. Jimmie 5
    17 September 2011 at 9:58 am

    Hmmmm is the phrase ‘Roy Morgan Poll’ a banned phrase on here yet? Shouldn’t you guys spend a bit more time working out strategy and plans to help Labour increase national support in the coming election – or have you given up?

    I reckon the day Labour become the government again will be the day when its own supporters are more critical of their own MP’s than the Nats are. It doesn’t happen at the moment and ya all are slowly dying the death of 1000 polls. What does it take to wake die hard Labourites up? 20% come November? Wakey wakey otherwise you will end up like Japan on last nights scoreboard -very painful.

    • Carol 5.1
      17 September 2011 at 10:02 am

      Which guys are you referring to? This is not a Labour blog, and there has often been criticism of Labour here… look up to the first posts on this Open Mike thread for instance.

  6. interesting 6
    17 September 2011 at 10:12 am

    Latest Roy Morgan results are interesting….

    http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2011/4700/

    The latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows support for Prime Minister John Key’s National-led Government is virtually unchanged at 61.5% (up 5.5%). Support for Key’s National Party is 57% (up 5% – the highest since October 2009), ACT NZ 1.5% (down 0.5%), the Maori Party 2.5% (up 1%), and United Future 0.5% (unchanged).

    Support for Opposition Parties is at 38.5% (down 5.5%) — Labour Party 26% (down 3.5% – the lowest since March 2009), Greens 7.5% (down 1.5%), New Zealand First 3.5% (unchanged), Mana Party 1% (unchanged) and Others 0.5% (down 0.5%).

    This was taken for another two days after the opening night fiasco….and yet it doesn’t seem to have altered the result…..yet

    • Lanthanide 6.1
      17 September 2011 at 10:26 am

      “This was taken for another two days after the opening night fiasco….and yet it doesn’t seem to have altered the result…..yet”

      Because very little polling is actually done in the last couple of days.

      They have demographic quotas they have to reach like most market research does. Ever had someone ring up and ask how old you were and then said “sorry we don’t need you for our research”?

      The last couple of days of phone polling are to fill in the small demographic niches they have remaining so that they can say they have a statistically valid sample of the population.

    • kriswgtn 6.2
      17 September 2011 at 10:29 am

      sooner or later the left will win again and then its open season on you and ur bitch trolls

      go away and lick farrars balls
      you bore me with ur continuous boring trolling

      • Colonial Viper 6.2.1
        17 September 2011 at 10:49 am

        The thing is, when the left is back in power they need to introduce a massive agenda of change for the country, not pussyfoot around trying to be a centrist 95% continuation of capitalist free market policies.

        • AAMC 6.2.1.1
          17 September 2011 at 12:04 pm

          +1

          Abandon the focus group, lead!

          • freedom 6.2.1.1.1
            17 September 2011 at 12:26 pm

            line up the focus groups, the lobbyists, in fact grab every single one of the wastrels that sit in the house week in week out. Put them against the wall and charge people a buck a shot for thirty seconds with a paintball gun.

            People get frustration out, art is created and the country’s debt is paid off in a week.

  8. gingercrush 8
    17 September 2011 at 12:19 pm

    I really don’t like Labour’s billboards. What happened to their simple two tick bill boards from 1999-2005. The current ones seem so individualised and far too focused on the electorate vote.

  9. Pete George 9
    17 September 2011 at 12:22 pm

    A followup after some thought and feedback on the Maori flag flap.

    The flap about the NEV school flag flying was odd as the complaint was about the Maori flag flying amongst other flags. The complainer was implying there should be only one flag – the onbe of his choice.

    This isn’t a Maori problem, it’s a problem for all cultures, and an issue of free speech.

    • marty mars 9.1
      17 September 2011 at 12:57 pm

      so do you agree with the contents of the email he sent?

      if it’s not a Māori issue why did he moan just about the tino rangatiratanga flag and send that email?

      • Pete George 9.1.1
        17 September 2011 at 1:44 pm

        I don’t agree with his email. He seems like he only wanty’s “his” flag flown so the kids don’t get confused. I think he’s confused.

        However I think he represents quite a common point of view. It’s probably based more on superficial perception rather than any thought. I wonder what he thinks of all the Argentinian and English and Georgian and Italian and Irish flags being flown around Dunedin at the moment.

  10. RedBaron 10
    17 September 2011 at 12:33 pm

    I can’t see Key being in a lengthy TV shot by himself from now on where the rugby is concerned. Don’t forget there are big screens all over the country and if he was booed in Auckland when he spoke then I don’t imagine the minders will want that spreading. It validates the number of people who don’t like him, reassures them they are not alone and influences others.

    I predict all rugby shots from now on will have him attached to an All Black as the crowd would then feel disloyal to the AB’s if they booed.

  11. Joe Bloggs 11
    17 September 2011 at 1:17 pm

    .
    Now that more details have been revealed about the dropping of charges against the Urewera 18, it appears that the guest post on The Standard was a little hasty in assigning fault to the police.

    It now appears that there were no “trumped up” charges and there was plenty of evidence – just an issue of admissibility because evidence was “covertly” collected.

    On the face of it, there certainly seems to be a case to be made:
    – evidence gathered over two years of military-style training camps and training activities
    – organised criminal behaviour
    – possession of numerous firearms, including sawn-off rifles and sawn-off shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, and an “AK47-style weapon”
    – training in use of, and possession of, molotov cocktails
    – &c.

    Resulting in charges that members of the group would have committed violent offences including murder, arson, intentional damage, endangering transport, wounding with intent, injuring with intent, aggravated wounding, discharging a firearm or doing a dangerous act with intent, using a firearm against police, committing a crime with a firearm and kidnapping.

    To be sure the police are not blameless – they went onto the land after getting search warrants and installed motion-sensor cameras. Now a High Court ruling has found that putting the cameras on private land was illegal.

    To criticise the police for this may be fair enough – but this “disallowed” evidence is compelling eough to warrant a little more respect for the Crown’s case against the remaining four accused, and a little less premature criticism of the police for taking action against the accused.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      17 September 2011 at 2:30 pm

      Why are people so upset about the AK47? Why don’t you use M-16 style weapon instead (they’re both assault rifles)?

      IMO, it has to do with increasing peoples fear and, amazingly enough, bringing back the Red Scare fear of commun1sm from the 1950s.

      So, tell me Joe, why are you scared of people?

      • Joe Bloggs 11.1.1
        17 September 2011 at 2:48 pm

        Sorry Draco to burst your little bubble about self-obsession but I wasn’t talking about me.

        The comments adress the reason why cases were dropped against some of the Urewera 18 and how the dropping of charges appears to have had nothing to do with the quality of evidence against those accused – and everything to do with the way the evidence was collected.

        In other words, the charges against the Urewera 18 appear to have some significant substance in reality.

        So, tell me Draco, why do you find that so threatening?

        • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1
          17 September 2011 at 3:10 pm

          …but I wasn’t talking about me.

          Yes you were. You were talking about your fear of other people having power and not supporting the way things are, the legal theft that is capitalism.

          • Lanthanide 11.1.1.1.1
            17 September 2011 at 3:28 pm

            Sorry, can you please quote the parts of his post where he was “talking about your fear of other people having power and not supporting the way things are”, because I must have missed them.

            Just re-read his post 3 times and couldn’t see them at all.

          • Joe Bloggs 11.1.1.1.2
            17 September 2011 at 3:52 pm

            .
            WHAT??????????????????

            Pathetic – now I’m talking about you Draco

    • Lanthanide 11.2
      17 September 2011 at 3:26 pm

      My boyfriend made pretty much the same observations.

      These people are acting as if the charges being dropped against them somehow proves that they were doing nothing wrong.

      No, not really, what is says is that the police pressed charges in the first place because they did have evidence that they were doing something wrong. The police just collected the evidence in an illegal fashion and so weren’t allowed to use it.

      • Joe Bloggs 11.2.1
        17 September 2011 at 3:57 pm

        .
        John Pagani comes to a similar conclusion…

        … and adds Too many people have been far too quick ignore the seriousness of what’s at stake here. Just imagine if the variety of ethnic nationalism at issue was the type preached by the Norwegian monster

    • Bill 11.3
      17 September 2011 at 6:12 pm

      Quite willing to be corrected if I am wrong. But, is there any first hand source saying that the only reason charges were dropped was because of the way evidence was collected?

      Or is merely a reason. Because if it’s only areason and not the sole reason, then basically all that is happening is that the authorities are ‘saving face’ while leaving them free to cast aspersions on the integrity of the people they dropped the charges on.

      Now the authorities (if my assumption is correct) can mislead the media (assuming a separation there, just for a moment) and the public with an avalanche of innuendo and bullshit.

      eg “We charged (whoever) on sheep shagging offences. We collected the info illegally and are dropping charges.” is entirely different to “We charged (whoever) on sheep shagging offences. We have to drop the charges, for the sole reason that we collected the info illegally”

      In the first example, other possible reasons for dopping the charges include that the person simply wasn’t shagging sheep.

      • McFlock 11.3.1
        17 September 2011 at 6:46 pm

        The admissability of the evidence has been tested. The quality of that evidence has not.
          
        But if you consider that someone feels justified or just arrogant enough to ride roughshod over rules of evidence without getting so much as a legal opinion for advice, I wonder about their interpretation of any evidence they gathered. It’ll all come out in the wash, one way or another I guess.

    • Bill 11.4
      17 September 2011 at 6:45 pm

      @ Joe Bloggs

      – evidence gathered over two years of military-style training camps and training activities.

      It could be argued that the Boys Brigade and the Cadets (or whatever they call those young nippers dressed up in army gear these days) are involved in ‘military-style training camps’. Define a ‘military-style training camp’, would you? Such a reference could be pertaining to nothing more than a particular command and control structure. Just because images of Al Qaeda training camps are all the rage in the popular imagination these days, doesn’t mean that ‘miltary style training camps’ need satisfy that image to be reasonably labelled as ‘military style training camps’. Have the authorities provided thorough details; the details that led them to use that desciption? Or are they merely being provocative and relying on the public to fill in the desirable blanks?

      – organised criminal behaviour

      That could be almost anything, from growing a bit of dak or two people collaborating in chainsawing a tree that wasn’t theirs to indulging in a bit illegal hunting (no liscense, poaching or whatever).

      – possession of numerous firearms, including sawn-off rifles and sawn-off shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, and an “AK47-style weapon”

      Aren’t firearms common place in NZ? These people were in the bush. How many people go into the bush with firearms? A fair few. If the desciptions are accurate then, yes. It would seem that some illegal firearms were in someone’s possession.

      – training in use of, and possession of, molotov cocktails

      Training in the use of molotov cocktails? Really!? What is there to train on? For two years!!? And is it a crime to partially fill a bottle with petrol, light a soaked rag and throw it…out in the middle of nowhere? I guess if there’s a fire ban or something it might be.

      And this wouldn’t be the first time that a (non-regulatuion) petrol container with a stopper in it has become, in the eyes of the police, a molotov cocktail. Reality being it was a container with petrol that was being used in reasonable ways in reasonable circumstances.

      Anyway. Don’t misconstue what I’m saying. I’m not claiming to know what was what. But don’t you think it reasonable to ask questions rather than jump to the previously drip fed conclusions of the authorities?

  12. Di 12
    17 September 2011 at 5:46 pm

    Does anyone know whether NZ will be supporting the recognition of the state of Palestine in the UN Vote?

    • Colonial Viper 12.1
      17 September 2011 at 6:24 pm

      Key will have NZ vote whichever way the US recommends us to.

    • rosy 12.2
      17 September 2011 at 6:42 pm

      I think the Foreign Affairs Minister is otherwise engaged… but yeah, we’ll go with the Americans. Obama campaigned on a 2-state solution and now they’re saying no, I can’t think that’s a good move at all.

      I see the Europeans are split on this – it’ll be the end of the goodwill created by the Arab Spring if the vote against it IMO.

    • Bill 12.3
      17 September 2011 at 7:08 pm

      The US is going to veto. We know that already.

      So NZ could vote for a Palestinian state and it wouldn’t matter.

      Johnny Boy being the good boy that he is will probably direct for an abstention from NZ. Wouldn’t want to upset the master now, would he? Give that arse cheek a little peck and apologise in private for not going the whole head up the arse hog this time around, and promise to do better in future.

      • rosy 12.3.1
        17 September 2011 at 7:34 pm

        It appears there are 2 separate means of requesting – one is full statehood at the Security Council, which the US will veto. Does NZ has a role at all in that?

        The second,is to take the request to the full assembly, this will give enhanced observer status, not full. But they should win that hands down.

        Anyway, it looks like the Palestinians have decided on the Security Council route first.

  13. joe90 13
    17 September 2011 at 7:42 pm

    …sigh..Palestine’s ambassador to Lebanon: Palestinian refugees will not become citizens of a new Palestinian state.

    The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state, an issue that has been much discussed. “They are Palestinians, that’s their identity,” he says. “But … they are not automatically citizens.”

    This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where Abdullah says Palestinians reside. Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”

    Abdullah said that the new Palestinian state would “absolutely not” be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees.