I can’t help but feel that Davis’ Bond fantasies are getting a little out of hand.
While reporting on the Belgian reaction to the UK election result, and providing a bit of context, VRT mentions that Theresa May called the election in order to strengthen her hand in the Brexit negotiations by increasing her majority in the British Parliament.
However, things didn’t quite go to plan
Look, I know a lot of bleeding hearts are always appalled by the sight of the Conservative party in pursuit, as a wounded leader desperately tries to get back to its foxhole. But I’m afraid those hand-wringers simply don’t understand the traditions involved or the wonderful community bonds that are forged over the activity. Well done to May for supporting its return.
The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them.
You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.
You have two options:
- Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
- Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the most ethical choice?
Here is the solution:
Via Liberal England.
President Trump will not be attending the White House Correspondents’ dinner this year due to fears that people will make jokes and be mean to him.
America’s premier snowflake said he will break a 35-year tradition by avoiding the dinner in April because his skin is as thin as the margin of his electoral victory.
‘President Snowflake’ is such an obvious moniker, I’m surprised that this is the first time I’ve seen anyone use it.
Last week I mentioned that the Belgian parliament has rejected advice from an independent integrity committee to ban the distribution of free beer and wine to MPs. Free booze was introduced in the late 1990 to discourage parliamentarians from sneaking off to the pub during debates.
This has become quite an issue over the past few days, with some saying that the free booze should be scrapped to improve the quality of debate while others (mainly MPs) have denied that there is any problem at all. However a compromise has now been reached and, while the federal parliament will continue to serve beer and wine, MPs will now be expected to pay for it.
Coffee remains free, as it should. For everyone.
However, as Politico notes:
It is unclear how much drinks will cost. Alcohol will remain free of charge in the regional parliament of Flanders, which had a similar policy, its speaker said last week.
Free alcohol for MPs was introduced in the late 1990s to prevent deputies from going to bars during debates.
– EUobserver reporting that the Belgian parliament has rejected advice from an independent integrity committee to ban the distribution of free beer and wine to MPs.