<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The national interest</title>
	<atom:link href="http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/11/29/the-national-interest/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/11/29/the-national-interest/</link>
	<description>Fearlessly dispensing political, legal and economic analysis (and some whimsy) since 2002</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 13:31:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alphonse</title>
		<link>http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/11/29/the-national-interest/#comment-361094</link>
		<dc:creator>Alphonse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:56:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/11/29/the-national-interest/#comment-361094</guid>
		<description>Is &quot;&lt;strong&gt;no bill is better than the negotiated one&lt;/strong&gt;&quot; the unstated premise of this outburst?

I would agree that the negotiated one is worse than the intoduced one, which in turn is worse than the Garnault papers led us to expect; but my view is that an act that can be amended is better than no act at all, and not just because it&#039;s good to ante-up with something before Copenhagen.

Or do I have the unstated premise wrong? Is it &quot;&lt;strong&gt;I&#039;m a Minchkin&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is &#8220;<strong>no bill is better than the negotiated one</strong>&#8221; the unstated premise of this outburst?</p>
<p>I would agree that the negotiated one is worse than the intoduced one, which in turn is worse than the Garnault papers led us to expect; but my view is that an act that can be amended is better than no act at all, and not just because it&#8217;s good to ante-up with something before Copenhagen.</p>
<p>Or do I have the unstated premise wrong? Is it &#8220;<strong>I&#8217;m a Minchkin</strong>&#8220;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TimT</title>
		<link>http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/11/29/the-national-interest/#comment-361093</link>
		<dc:creator>TimT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:49:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/11/29/the-national-interest/#comment-361093</guid>
		<description>Heh. Snippy. Though I must admit all those Rudd-ian claims about being above politics, pragmatic, bla bla bla, are looking rather hypocritical in light of the wedge delivered to the Opposition over the last week.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heh. Snippy. Though I must admit all those Rudd-ian claims about being above politics, pragmatic, bla bla bla, are looking rather hypocritical in light of the wedge delivered to the Opposition over the last week.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

