We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
This is so delusional. We have a FTA with the EU and our exports to them are at or near record levels (as, unfortunately, are imports). The problems we had when we were members of the EU, funnily enough, remain. Nutter Brexiteers blamed the EU for our own problems. Now remainers do the same with Brexit. Its pathetic, wrong and, even worse, a diversion from our real problems.
We have massive barriers to frictionless trade, these all cost money and effectively stop lots of sme trading as well as they did.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
This is so delusional. We have a FTA with the EU and our exports to them are at or near record levels (as, unfortunately, are imports). The problems we had when we were members of the EU, funnily enough, remain. Nutter Brexiteers blamed the EU for our own problems. Now remainers do the same with Brexit. Its pathetic, wrong and, even worse, a diversion from our real problems.
How do you know that had we not Brexited we would be doing even better.
But at least you accept that the EU was only ever a scapegoat for our own internally-generated problems.
Brits are rationally pessimistic. The country has been in free-fall for some time.
An exaggeration.
The UK has its challenges, but they are no more profound than, say, the US, France, Germany, or even Sweden or New Zealand are facing - albeit sometimes different.
The hyberbole on the UK is caused by our self-absorption, ignorance of the challenges that other countries are facing, familiarity breeding contempt, and a mixture of familiarity and confirmation bias.
In general I agree with you, I often try to remind people things are not as bad as tend to say, on a historical basis for example. But the last couple of years, even just as a result of the Covid impact, do anecdotally seem to have led to appreciable negative differences. We don't seem to have any ideas to address things either, and the only one offered was Truss's 'Er, cutting taxes solves everything?'.
At least she was offering a solution.
You don't get many plaudits if the solution was so ill thought it out it blew apart in a stiff breeze.
Correct me if I am wrong about this, but isn't one of the problems in Britain (as in the United States) is that so many people want to move there, legally and illegally? Isn't that a sign that Britain is doing better (or at least not as bad) as many (most?) other nations?
I am particularly struck by the number who, having reached France, want to continue on to Britain.
Number of refugees by country is shown here (click on "Refugees by country" column in the table after you scroll down). https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/refugees-by-country UK has 223K, France has 542K, even Russia has 73K, but the bulk are as you'd expect in countries neighbouring the places people are fleeing from. Turkey has more than 3.5 million, making our grumbles about numbers look very small beer.
Yes, though being right next door to a very volatile situation would inevitably mean a place suffers the burden more.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
Yeah, bollocks though - Brexit is just the scapegoat, as the EU was before.
We'd be having exactly the same issues inside the EU (and, indeed, it is those that led in large part to the vote to Leave) and so if we want to get past this and to solutions we need to put this aside and focus on the real problems, which are essentially domestic.
So you’re essentially admitting that Brexit was pointless, and the idea that Brexit would solve all our problems was bollocks? That I’ve lost my cherished European citizenship and freedom of movement for no real reason?
But I suppose it’s all good anyway, ‘cos now the Tories can take a wrecking ball to all those pesky regs they despise, like worker and environmental protections. Potentially, if not wilfully, causing chaos and dodging parliamentary oversight of new laws via the EU Retained Law Bill. No deal by another name.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
Yeah, bollocks though - Brexit is just the scapegoat, as the EU was before.
We'd be having exactly the same issues inside the EU (and, indeed, it is those that led in large part to the vote to Leave) and so if we want to get past this and to solutions we need to put this aside and focus on the real problems, which are essentially domestic.
Rubbish. Trade within the EU is frictionless. They can trade and earn money a lot better than us (along with NI). If we were still in the EU we'd be trading and earning more money as a country.
We had a negative balance of trade with the EU.
So? It's even worse now.
So, you say we'd be earning more money; you overlook the fact that we'd be spending even more money - the end destination of which is still 'no money'. I appreciate that Brexit has not in and of itself reversed this situation, but there is no point in pretending that our previous state was a satisfactory one.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
Yeah, bollocks though - Brexit is just the scapegoat, as the EU was before.
We'd be having exactly the same issues inside the EU (and, indeed, it is those that led in large part to the vote to Leave) and so if we want to get past this and to solutions we need to put this aside and focus on the real problems, which are essentially domestic.
Rubbish. Trade within the EU is frictionless. They can trade and earn money a lot better than us (along with NI). If we were still in the EU we'd be trading and earning more money as a country.
We had a negative balance of trade with the EU.
So? It's even worse now.
So, you say we'd be earning more money; you overlook the fact that we'd be spending even more money - the end destination of which is still 'no money'. I appreciate that Brexit has not in and of itself reversed this situation, but there is no point in pretending that our previous state was a satisfactory one.
Earning more money would help pay taxes and pay for more services.
Correct me if I am wrong about this, but isn't one of the problems in Britain (as in the United States) is that so many people want to move there, legally and illegally? Isn't that a sign that Britain is doing better (or at least not as bad) as many (most?) other nations?
I am particularly struck by the number who, having reached France, want to continue on to Britain.
According to a number of refugee organisations, it is intolerable that the refugees in Calais remain in France, so appalling are the conditions there.
Any country that can't even host refugees tolerably is a failed state.
France also has oil.
The solution seems obvious. Conquer France, implement the Treaty of Troyes.
Incidentally, this would undo Brexit. With a bit of legal argy bargy. But hey....
An Anglo-French merger would make a lot of sense. Very complementary, many obvious deal synergies, and would probably solve the Scottish issue given the Auld Alliance.
Prince Harry as monarch.
Personally, and it is probably a matter of correlation, not causation, I feel that we seem to do rather better when we're in conflict with France rather than in an alliance.
Half of Britain’s golden era was when we were enemies of France, half of it was when we were allies. I suspect the correlation is close to zero.
Brits are rationally pessimistic. The country has been in free-fall for some time.
An exaggeration.
The UK has its challenges, but they are no more profound than, say, the US, France, Germany, or even Sweden or New Zealand are facing - albeit sometimes different.
The hyberbole on the UK is caused by our self-absorption, ignorance of the challenges that other countries are facing, familiarity breeding contempt, and a mixture of familiarity and confirmation bias.
In general I agree with you, I often try to remind people things are not as bad as tend to say, on a historical basis for example. But the last couple of years, even just as a result of the Covid impact, do anecdotally seem to have led to appreciable negative differences. We don't seem to have any ideas to address things either, and the only one offered was Truss's 'Er, cutting taxes solves everything?'.
At least she was offering a solution.
You don't get many plaudits if the solution was so ill thought it out it blew apart in a stiff breeze.
You get more from plaudits from me for a poorly implemented plan to make things better than a publicly-acknowledged complete lack of interest in making things better. What solutions has Sunak put forward to end the COL crisis? What is his plan to build an economy that outperforms its peers. He isn't even at the party.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
This is so delusional. We have a FTA with the EU and our exports to them are at or near record levels (as, unfortunately, are imports). The problems we had when we were members of the EU, funnily enough, remain. Nutter Brexiteers blamed the EU for our own problems. Now remainers do the same with Brexit. Its pathetic, wrong and, even worse, a diversion from our real problems.
How do you know that had we not Brexited we would be doing even better.
But at least you accept that the EU was only ever a scapegoat for our own internally-generated problems.
Why would we? It's a genuine question. Even if you take the hypothesis that being outside the SM is a problem (and that is highly debatable) would we be doing better or worse inside it given our trade disadvantage? No one can know for sure but to assume that more exports would somehow solve our problems when the quid pro quo (on this hypothesis) is even more imports is, at best, speculative and almost certainly wrong.
Another German scandal might blow in German media.
Business Insider reports the outgoing Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht banned the military from making an inventory check ahead Ramstein to see how many Leopards are available.
Correct me if I am wrong about this, but isn't one of the problems in Britain (as in the United States) is that so many people want to move there, legally and illegally? Isn't that a sign that Britain is doing better (or at least not as bad) as many (most?) other nations?
I am particularly struck by the number who, having reached France, want to continue on to Britain.
According to a number of refugee organisations, it is intolerable that the refugees in Calais remain in France, so appalling are the conditions there.
Any country that can't even host refugees tolerably is a failed state.
France also has oil.
The solution seems obvious. Conquer France, implement the Treaty of Troyes.
Incidentally, this would undo Brexit. With a bit of legal argy bargy. But hey....
An Anglo-French merger would make a lot of sense. Very complementary, many obvious deal synergies, and would probably solve the Scottish issue given the Auld Alliance.
Prince Harry as monarch.
Personally, and it is probably a matter of correlation, not causation, I feel that we seem to do rather better when we're in conflict with France rather than in an alliance.
Half of Britain’s golden era was when we were enemies of France, half of it was when we were allies. I suspect the correlation is close to zero.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
Yeah, bollocks though - Brexit is just the scapegoat, as the EU was before.
We'd be having exactly the same issues inside the EU (and, indeed, it is those that led in large part to the vote to Leave) and so if we want to get past this and to solutions we need to put this aside and focus on the real problems, which are essentially domestic.
Rubbish. Trade within the EU is frictionless. They can trade and earn money a lot better than us (along with NI). If we were still in the EU we'd be trading and earning more money as a country.
We had a negative balance of trade with the EU.
So? It's even worse now.
Not too surprising really as we have installed a one way valve, as there are no incoming checks.
Brits are rationally pessimistic. The country has been in free-fall for some time.
An exaggeration.
The UK has its challenges, but they are no more profound than, say, the US, France, Germany, or even Sweden or New Zealand are facing - albeit sometimes different.
The hyberbole on the UK is caused by our self-absorption, ignorance of the challenges that other countries are facing, familiarity breeding contempt, and a mixture of familiarity and confirmation bias.
In general I agree with you, I often try to remind people things are not as bad as tend to say, on a historical basis for example. But the last couple of years, even just as a result of the Covid impact, do anecdotally seem to have led to appreciable negative differences. We don't seem to have any ideas to address things either, and the only one offered was Truss's 'Er, cutting taxes solves everything?'.
At least she was offering a solution.
You don't get many plaudits if the solution was so ill thought it out it blew apart in a stiff breeze.
You get more from plaudits from me for a poorly implemented plan to make things better than a publicly-acknowledged complete lack of interest in making things better. What solutions has Sunak put forward to end the COL crisis? What is his plan to build an economy that outperforms its peers. He isn't even at the party.
All Truss needed was a payment plan. It might have stretched credulity but that was the huge error. Not the intent but the failure to show their working.
Which in its way shows their naivety or incompetence which in turn perhaps shows the flaw in their plan.
Brits are rationally pessimistic. The country has been in free-fall for some time.
An exaggeration.
The UK has its challenges, but they are no more profound than, say, the US, France, Germany, or even Sweden or New Zealand are facing - albeit sometimes different.
The hyberbole on the UK is caused by our self-absorption, ignorance of the challenges that other countries are facing, familiarity breeding contempt, and a mixture of familiarity and confirmation bias.
In general I agree with you, I often try to remind people things are not as bad as tend to say, on a historical basis for example. But the last couple of years, even just as a result of the Covid impact, do anecdotally seem to have led to appreciable negative differences. We don't seem to have any ideas to address things either, and the only one offered was Truss's 'Er, cutting taxes solves everything?'.
At least she was offering a solution.
You don't get many plaudits if the solution was so ill thought it out it blew apart in a stiff breeze.
You get more from plaudits from me for a poorly implemented plan to make things better than a publicly-acknowledged complete lack of interest in making things better. What solutions has Sunak put forward to end the COL crisis? What is his plan to build an economy that outperforms its peers. He isn't even at the party.
After a week of slush and damp, tonight there is a hard frost in Tallinn.
The general election campaign has started with the parties submitting their lists of candidates and announcing their programs. The polls seem to show a polarization of views. Although the Liberal Reform party of PM Kaja Kallas is set to remain as the largest party in the 101 seat Riigikogu, the steady rise of the far right EKRE seems to place them firmly in second place, replacing the Social Liberal Centre Party, who seem set to lose several seats. In addition to the Conservative Isamaaliit and the Social Democrat SDE, there is a fair likelihood that a new party will join these in Parliament, namely the Business/Green minded Eesti 200. The Greens and the Libertarian "Right wingers" look like they will struggle to gain seats. A Moderate Reform/SDE/E200 coalition would be a good outcome, but the numbers will have to fall just so, otherwise there remains the chance of another Centre/Isamaa/EKRE coalition, which is unlikely to be either stable or effective. There remain suspicions about EKRE, as there are about any far right group in the EU.
The backdrop to the election is increasingly grim. There is a real sense of shock and anger that Germany has blocked any Leopards going to Ukraine, at a time when Estonia is donating over 1% of its entire GDP to Ukraine. Although the Baltic Assembly was diplomatic in expressing its disappointment, the truth is that the Balts feel increasingly exposed and deeply concerned about the prospects for a Russian counter attack.
The stunningly callous way that Russia has been murdering its own soldiers is not a surprise, but the revised CIA assessment of Russian casualties:of over 188,000 of which nearly 120,000 are dead, remains shocking. Unfortunately the meat grinder is also hitting Ukraine, and several thousand Ukrainian troops were killed in the last week as Russia consolidated its hold around Bakhmut. The need for military assistance to Ukraine is becoming an emergency, and German delays will be publicly condemned in very strong terms from here and elsewhere, if Leopards are not on the move soon.
In contrast British assistance in Estonia- Chinooks and more equipment, mostly, has arrived at the bases in Tapa and Amari and the cooperation between the UK and Estonia is increasing all the time.
Medvedev emerging from his Vodka bottle with more blood curdling nuclear threats can be discounted for the time being, but the longer this war continues, the more likely the use of nuclear weapons becomes. The depraved murderers in the Kremlin will stop at nothing, and they must be stopped. There is a growing sense that Germany may betray the Eastern flank, and that Russia has extended its subversive activities across the West.
A hard frost indeed as we wait out the dark winter days.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
No. As I understand it, Scholz wants full US commitment to any escalation in terms of weapons supplies. Maybe that's stupid, but I find it easier to understand than the US position.
The US is sending a whole new tranche of weapons. They've sent Bradleys. The Abrams are very heavy on fuel and will take longer to train on. As well as the logistical difficulties of getting them there. And most of the Leopard tanks aren't even German. I'm sorry it just looks like an excuse.
The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine, so why doesn't the US want Ukraine to have tanks?
You mention Bradleys. Ukraine also asked for these and the roughly equivalent German Marders many months ago. Germany also said "not alone" on Marders, the US said no. When 2 weeks ago the US announced it would send Bradleys Germany announced it would send Marders on the very same day.
I think Germany should send Leopards, at least allow others to, without a US commitment on Abrams tanks, but it's just a bit weird to hear various versions of "Germany is crazy/wants Russia to win" or whatever from people who seem find the US position perfectly reasonable.
"The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine"
No.
The thing that would get Leopard 2's to Ukraine is Germany saying: "Here, have these Leopards."
Linking it to the US's actions is just perverse. Either it is the correct thing to send them, or it is not.
And yet Germany, however wrongly, has consistently linked them, as they did with Marders and other types of weapons. This is a fact that you really seem to have difficulty with for some reason.
It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. Why do you deny an obvious reality? It's just weird.
Germany's position is such that they invoke Schrödinger's tank: the provision of tanks is both linked to, and not linked to, US provision of Abrams. Sometimes they say it is, sometimes they say it is not. They have not been consistent in the least.
"It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. "
It is not a fact, as it is unproven. I'm dubious about it, given Germany's behaviour so far. They might well give some excuse, or promise them in 2026.
It is quite simple: if Germany wants Ukraine to have Leopard 2's, give them them. At the very least, let other send theirs.
They don't.
They have been entirely consistent on this for months, until somewhat ambiguous statements in the last 2 days seemed to indicate there might be a change of policy - which may still happen.
Past behaviour supports the idea that if the US promises Germany will follow, but you seem uninterested in facts.
I think you are being wilfully obtuse on this, or maybe you just can't stand the idea that "Germany" isn't entirely and uniquely and shamefully to blame.
What do you think of US refusal of tanks? To me it seems worse, and more worrying and more disappointing.
To make it clear: I have nothing against Germany or Germans. I do think the German government is being absolutely and curiously stupid over this, though.
The German position has been inconsistent, as far as I can tell. And I am interested in facts.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
Yeah, bollocks though - Brexit is just the scapegoat, as the EU was before.
We'd be having exactly the same issues inside the EU (and, indeed, it is those that led in large part to the vote to Leave) and so if we want to get past this and to solutions we need to put this aside and focus on the real problems, which are essentially domestic.
So you’re essentially admitting that Brexit was pointless, and the idea that Brexit would solve all our problems was bollocks? That I’ve lost my cherished European citizenship and freedom of movement for no real reason?
But I suppose it’s all good anyway, ‘cos now the Tories can take a wrecking ball to all those pesky regs they despise, like worker and environmental protections. Potentially, if not wilfully, causing chaos and dodging parliamentary oversight of new laws via the EU Retained Law Bill. No deal by another name.
Taking Back Control, indeed.
Wonderful.
Clearly, this level of debate is beyond you so you’re trying to narrow it down to something much more simple that your mind can both comprehend and engage with.
You knock yourself out, but I have better things to do with my time.
Brits are rationally pessimistic. The country has been in free-fall for some time.
An exaggeration.
The UK has its challenges, but they are no more profound than, say, the US, France, Germany, or even Sweden or New Zealand are facing - albeit sometimes different.
The hyberbole on the UK is caused by our self-absorption, ignorance of the challenges that other countries are facing, familiarity breeding contempt, and a mixture of familiarity and confirmation bias.
In general I agree with you, I often try to remind people things are not as bad as tend to say, on a historical basis for example. But the last couple of years, even just as a result of the Covid impact, do anecdotally seem to have led to appreciable negative differences. We don't seem to have any ideas to address things either, and the only one offered was Truss's 'Er, cutting taxes solves everything?'.
At least she was offering a solution.
You don't get many plaudits if the solution was so ill thought it out it blew apart in a stiff breeze.
You get more from plaudits from me for a poorly implemented plan to make things better than a publicly-acknowledged complete lack of interest in making things better. What solutions has Sunak put forward to end the COL crisis? What is his plan to build an economy that outperforms its peers. He isn't even at the party.
All Truss needed was a payment plan. It might have stretched credulity but that was the huge error. Not the intent but the failure to show their working.
Which in its way shows their naivety or incompetence which in turn perhaps shows the flaw in their plan.
Correct me if I am wrong about this, but isn't one of the problems in Britain (as in the United States) is that so many people want to move there, legally and illegally? Isn't that a sign that Britain is doing better (or at least not as bad) as many (most?) other nations?
I am particularly struck by the number who, having reached France, want to continue on to Britain.
According to a number of refugee organisations, it is intolerable that the refugees in Calais remain in France, so appalling are the conditions there.
Any country that can't even host refugees tolerably is a failed state.
France also has oil.
The solution seems obvious. Conquer France, implement the Treaty of Troyes.
Incidentally, this would undo Brexit. With a bit of legal argy bargy. But hey....
An Anglo-French merger would make a lot of sense. Very complementary, many obvious deal synergies, and would probably solve the Scottish issue given the Auld Alliance.
Prince Harry as monarch.
Personally, and it is probably a matter of correlation, not causation, I feel that we seem to do rather better when we're in conflict with France rather than in an alliance.
Half of Britain’s golden era was when we were enemies of France, half of it was when we were allies. I suspect the correlation is close to zero.
We have been allies of France?? Occasionally on the same side, maybe, at a push.
Brits are rationally pessimistic. The country has been in free-fall for some time.
An exaggeration.
The UK has its challenges, but they are no more profound than, say, the US, France, Germany, or even Sweden or New Zealand are facing - albeit sometimes different.
The hyberbole on the UK is caused by our self-absorption, ignorance of the challenges that other countries are facing, familiarity breeding contempt, and a mixture of familiarity and confirmation bias.
In general I agree with you, I often try to remind people things are not as bad as tend to say, on a historical basis for example. But the last couple of years, even just as a result of the Covid impact, do anecdotally seem to have led to appreciable negative differences. We don't seem to have any ideas to address things either, and the only one offered was Truss's 'Er, cutting taxes solves everything?'.
At least she was offering a solution.
You don't get many plaudits if the solution was so ill thought it out it blew apart in a stiff breeze.
You get more from plaudits from me for a poorly implemented plan to make things better than a publicly-acknowledged complete lack of interest in making things better. What solutions has Sunak put forward to end the COL crisis? What is his plan to build an economy that outperforms its peers. He isn't even at the party.
All Truss needed was a payment plan. It might have stretched credulity but that was the huge error. Not the intent but the failure to show their working.
Which in its way shows their naivety or incompetence which in turn perhaps shows the flaw in their plan.
Edit: and I wanted to be a fan of their approach.
I agree. According to some insiders, a costed announcement was the plan. Why that course changed, we may never know.
In my head, Kwarteng decided he wanted to do it that way, and he had a hold over Truss. Why did he want to do it that way? Dunno. Why did he tell all his city friends about it the day before so they could be part of the feeding frenzy? Dunno.
Brits are rationally pessimistic. The country has been in free-fall for some time.
An exaggeration.
The UK has its challenges, but they are no more profound than, say, the US, France, Germany, or even Sweden or New Zealand are facing - albeit sometimes different.
The hyberbole on the UK is caused by our self-absorption, ignorance of the challenges that other countries are facing, familiarity breeding contempt, and a mixture of familiarity and confirmation bias.
In general I agree with you, I often try to remind people things are not as bad as tend to say, on a historical basis for example. But the last couple of years, even just as a result of the Covid impact, do anecdotally seem to have led to appreciable negative differences. We don't seem to have any ideas to address things either, and the only one offered was Truss's 'Er, cutting taxes solves everything?'.
At least she was offering a solution.
You don't get many plaudits if the solution was so ill thought it out it blew apart in a stiff breeze.
You get more from plaudits from me for a poorly implemented plan to make things better than a publicly-acknowledged complete lack of interest in making things better. What solutions has Sunak put forward to end the COL crisis? What is his plan to build an economy that outperforms its peers. He isn't even at the party.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
This is so delusional. We have a FTA with the EU and our exports to them are at or near record levels (as, unfortunately, are imports). The problems we had when we were members of the EU, funnily enough, remain. Nutter Brexiteers blamed the EU for our own problems. Now remainers do the same with Brexit. Its pathetic, wrong and, even worse, a diversion from our real problems.
It's a one-dimensional post from a one-dimensional mind.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
No. As I understand it, Scholz wants full US commitment to any escalation in terms of weapons supplies. Maybe that's stupid, but I find it easier to understand than the US position.
The US is sending a whole new tranche of weapons. They've sent Bradleys. The Abrams are very heavy on fuel and will take longer to train on. As well as the logistical difficulties of getting them there. And most of the Leopard tanks aren't even German. I'm sorry it just looks like an excuse.
The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine, so why doesn't the US want Ukraine to have tanks?
You mention Bradleys. Ukraine also asked for these and the roughly equivalent German Marders many months ago. Germany also said "not alone" on Marders, the US said no. When 2 weeks ago the US announced it would send Bradleys Germany announced it would send Marders on the very same day.
I think Germany should send Leopards, at least allow others to, without a US commitment on Abrams tanks, but it's just a bit weird to hear various versions of "Germany is crazy/wants Russia to win" or whatever from people who seem find the US position perfectly reasonable.
"The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine"
No.
The thing that would get Leopard 2's to Ukraine is Germany saying: "Here, have these Leopards."
Linking it to the US's actions is just perverse. Either it is the correct thing to send them, or it is not.
And yet Germany, however wrongly, has consistently linked them, as they did with Marders and other types of weapons. This is a fact that you really seem to have difficulty with for some reason.
It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. Why do you deny an obvious reality? It's just weird.
Germany's position is such that they invoke Schrödinger's tank: the provision of tanks is both linked to, and not linked to, US provision of Abrams. Sometimes they say it is, sometimes they say it is not. They have not been consistent in the least.
"It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. "
It is not a fact, as it is unproven. I'm dubious about it, given Germany's behaviour so far. They might well give some excuse, or promise them in 2026.
It is quite simple: if Germany wants Ukraine to have Leopard 2's, give them them. At the very least, let other send theirs.
They don't.
They have been entirely consistent on this for months, until somewhat ambiguous statements in the last 2 days seemed to indicate there might be a change of policy - which may still happen.
Past behaviour supports the idea that if the US promises Germany will follow, but you seem uninterested in facts.
I think you are being wilfully obtuse on this, or maybe you just can't stand the idea that "Germany" isn't entirely and uniquely and shamefully to blame.
What do you think of US refusal of tanks? To me it seems worse, and more worrying and more disappointing.
To make it clear: I have nothing against Germany or Germans. I do think the German government is being absolutely and curiously stupid over this, though.
The German position has been inconsistent, as far as I can tell. And I am interested in facts.
I can't comprehend the German position.
That probably means I'm not informed enough about German politics but, if that's the real reason, then they have bigger problems than I thought.
Brits are rationally pessimistic. The country has been in free-fall for some time.
An exaggeration.
The UK has its challenges, but they are no more profound than, say, the US, France, Germany, or even Sweden or New Zealand are facing - albeit sometimes different.
The hyberbole on the UK is caused by our self-absorption, ignorance of the challenges that other countries are facing, familiarity breeding contempt, and a mixture of familiarity and confirmation bias.
In general I agree with you, I often try to remind people things are not as bad as tend to say, on a historical basis for example. But the last couple of years, even just as a result of the Covid impact, do anecdotally seem to have led to appreciable negative differences. We don't seem to have any ideas to address things either, and the only one offered was Truss's 'Er, cutting taxes solves everything?'.
At least she was offering a solution.
You don't get many plaudits if the solution was so ill thought it out it blew apart in a stiff breeze.
You get more from plaudits from me for a poorly implemented plan to make things better than a publicly-acknowledged complete lack of interest in making things better. What solutions has Sunak put forward to end the COL crisis? What is his plan to build an economy that outperforms its peers. He isn't even at the party.
Yes he was, he got an FPN for it.
His plan is cake?
If only.
Outside a café in Glasgow: "The answer is cake, who cares what the question is?"
Another German scandal might blow in German media.
Business Insider reports the outgoing Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht banned the military from making an inventory check ahead Ramstein to see how many Leopards are available.
Ah, that answers the question I asked the other day: why were Germany only just doing an inventory.
Answer: because they *really* don't want to send them.
A surprising number of people don’t seem to realise that the reason why no formal, specific requests to Germany to reexport Leopards were made.
In diplomacy, you only ask a question when you are sure of the answer. And you also take into account the effect of asking it has.
Asking the German government for the re-export license would put them on the spot. Either they have to grant it. Or they have to refuse. And either way, the fact they’d been asked would come out when the politicians were asked.
Which is why the news that Poland put in a formal request is interesting. Either they’ve decided to ignore the issue of embarrassing Germany, or they’ve got the idea that it won’t be refused.
Any attempt to defend Zahawi is just fucking unbelievable. Here we have a seriously rich man who, through no motive other than greed, did everything he could to evade/avoid/minimise the tax he paid. I don't particularly care whether it was illegal or not, but it certainly looks dodgy.
Our politicians should be setting an example, as good citizens who readily pay all their due taxes for the common good. Sunak should sack Zahawi forthwith.
Any attempt to defend Zahawi is just fucking unbelievable. Here we have a seriously rich man who, through no motive other than greed, did everything he could to evade/avoid/minimise the tax he paid. I don't particularly care whether it was illegal or not, but it certainly looks dodgy.
Our politicians should be setting an example, as good citizens who readily pay all their due taxes for the common good. Sunak should sack Zahawi forthwith.
Oh come on. Who here can lay their hand on their heart and say they've never inadvertently underpaid their tax by several million pounds?
After a week of slush and damp, tonight there is a hard frost in Tallinn.
The general election campaign has started with the parties submitting their lists of candidates and announcing their programs. The polls seem to show a polarization of views. Although the Liberal Reform party of PM Kaja Kallas is set to remain as the largest party in the 101 seat Riigikogu, the steady rise of the far right EKRE seems to place them firmly in second place, replacing the Social Liberal Centre Party, who seem set to lose several seats. In addition to the Conservative Isamaaliit and the Social Democrat SDE, there is a fair likelihood that a new party will join these in Parliament, namely the Business/Green minded Eesti 200. The Greens and the Libertarian "Right wingers" look like they will struggle to gain seats. A Moderate Reform/SDE/E200 coalition would be a good outcome, but the numbers will have to fall just so, otherwise there remains the chance of another Centre/Isamaa/EKRE coalition, which is unlikely to be either stable or effective. There remain suspicions about EKRE, as there are about any far right group in the EU.
The backdrop to the election is increasingly grim. There is a real sense of shock and anger that Germany has blocked any Leopards going to Ukraine, at a time when Estonia is donating over 1% of its entire GDP to Ukraine. Although the Baltic Assembly was diplomatic in expressing its disappointment, the truth is that the Balts feel increasingly exposed and deeply concerned about the prospects for a Russian counter attack.
The stunningly callous way that Russia has been murdering its own soldiers is not a surprise, but the revised CIA assessment of Russian casualties:of over 188,000 of which nearly 120,000 are dead, remains shocking. Unfortunately the meat grinder is also hitting Ukraine, and several thousand Ukrainian troops were killed in the last week as Russia consolidated its hold around Bakhmut. The need for military assistance to Ukraine is becoming an emergency, and German delays will be publicly condemned in very strong terms from here and elsewhere, if Leopards are not on the move soon.
In contrast British assistance in Estonia- Chinooks and more equipment, mostly, has arrived at the bases in Tapa and Amari and the cooperation between the UK and Estonia is increasing all the time.
Medvedev emerging from his Vodka bottle with more blood curdling nuclear threats can be discounted for the time being, but the longer this war continues, the more likely the use of nuclear weapons becomes. The depraved murderers in the Kremlin will stop at nothing, and they must be stopped. There is a growing sense that Germany may betray the Eastern flank, and that Russia has extended its subversive activities across the West.
A hard frost indeed as we wait out the dark winter days.
SeanT’s/Leon’s greatest PB crime was to convince a lot of less gifted minds and writers on here that they can do the dismissive sign-off as well as him!
Any attempt to defend Zahawi is just fucking unbelievable. Here we have a seriously rich man who, through no motive other than greed, did everything he could to evade/avoid/minimise the tax he paid. I don't particularly care whether it was illegal or not, but it certainly looks dodgy.
Our politicians should be setting an example, as good citizens who readily pay all their due taxes for the common good. Sunak should sack Zahawi forthwith.
Any attempt to defend Zahawi is just fucking unbelievable. Here we have a seriously rich man who, through no motive other than greed, did everything he could to evade/avoid/minimise the tax he paid. I don't particularly care whether it was illegal or not, but it certainly looks dodgy.
Our politicians should be setting an example, as good citizens who readily pay all their due taxes for the common good. Sunak should sack Zahawi forthwith.
Oh come on. Who here can lay their hand on their heart and say they've never inadvertently underpaid their tax by several million pounds?
I asked the butler. Apparently one of the footmen in the servants hall to the servants hall underpaid his tax by several million.
After a week of slush and damp, tonight there is a hard frost in Tallinn.
The general election campaign has started with the parties submitting their lists of candidates and announcing their programs. The polls seem to show a polarization of views. Although the Liberal Reform party of PM Kaja Kallas is set to remain as the largest party in the 101 seat Riigikogu, the steady rise of the far right EKRE seems to place them firmly in second place, replacing the Social Liberal Centre Party, who seem set to lose several seats. In addition to the Conservative Isamaaliit and the Social Democrat SDE, there is a fair likelihood that a new party will join these in Parliament, namely the Business/Green minded Eesti 200. The Greens and the Libertarian "Right wingers" look like they will struggle to gain seats. A Moderate Reform/SDE/E200 coalition would be a good outcome, but the numbers will have to fall just so, otherwise there remains the chance of another Centre/Isamaa/EKRE coalition, which is unlikely to be either stable or effective. There remain suspicions about EKRE, as there are about any far right group in the EU.
The backdrop to the election is increasingly grim. There is a real sense of shock and anger that Germany has blocked any Leopards going to Ukraine, at a time when Estonia is donating over 1% of its entire GDP to Ukraine. Although the Baltic Assembly was diplomatic in expressing its disappointment, the truth is that the Balts feel increasingly exposed and deeply concerned about the prospects for a Russian counter attack.
The stunningly callous way that Russia has been murdering its own soldiers is not a surprise, but the revised CIA assessment of Russian casualties:of over 188,000 of which nearly 120,000 are dead, remains shocking. Unfortunately the meat grinder is also hitting Ukraine, and several thousand Ukrainian troops were killed in the last week as Russia consolidated its hold around Bakhmut. The need for military assistance to Ukraine is becoming an emergency, and German delays will be publicly condemned in very strong terms from here and elsewhere, if Leopards are not on the move soon.
In contrast British assistance in Estonia- Chinooks and more equipment, mostly, has arrived at the bases in Tapa and Amari and the cooperation between the UK and Estonia is increasing all the time.
Medvedev emerging from his Vodka bottle with more blood curdling nuclear threats can be discounted for the time being, but the longer this war continues, the more likely the use of nuclear weapons becomes. The depraved murderers in the Kremlin will stop at nothing, and they must be stopped. There is a growing sense that Germany may betray the Eastern flank, and that Russia has extended its subversive activities across the West.
A hard frost indeed as we wait out the dark winter days.
21 degrees in Simerfopol in January is quite unusual. Apart from the global warming issue, the unseasonably warm weather must be melting the frost into mud, making armoured movement difficult.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
Yeah, bollocks though - Brexit is just the scapegoat, as the EU was before.
We'd be having exactly the same issues inside the EU (and, indeed, it is those that led in large part to the vote to Leave) and so if we want to get past this and to solutions we need to put this aside and focus on the real problems, which are essentially domestic.
So you’re essentially admitting that Brexit was pointless, and the idea that Brexit would solve all our problems was bollocks? That I’ve lost my cherished European citizenship and freedom of movement for no real reason?
But I suppose it’s all good anyway, ‘cos now the Tories can take a wrecking ball to all those pesky regs they despise, like worker and environmental protections. Potentially, if not wilfully, causing chaos and dodging parliamentary oversight of new laws via the EU Retained Law Bill. No deal by another name.
Taking Back Control, indeed.
Wonderful.
Clearly, this level of debate is beyond you so you’re trying to narrow it down to something much more simple that your mind can both comprehend and engage with.
You knock yourself out, but I have better things to do with my time.
What an insulting post ! Perhaps you’d like to address the issues NM mentioned in the post rather than demeaning someone’s intelligence .
Badenoch believes that self-identification — the ability to change gender without medical diagnosis — puts women and girls at risk from predators. “We have no problem with that in the sense that we want people who are trans to be able to live their lives freely and as they wish,” she says. “The problem is that self-identification also makes life a lot easier for other people we don’t want to have those sorts of freedoms. Predators would be able to exploit any system that says you can just say you are what you are.”
“It’s also quite bad for trans people. They then get conflated and associated with the predators and people who are looking to do bad things. That’s why having a stricter regime rather than a loose regime is quite important. The problem is around the rhetoric. Rather than having a disagreement on whether you think self-identification is OK or not OK, people who have a different view are then abused, insulted, called transphobic. That’s what has really toxified the debate, and made a lot of people scared to say what they think.”
If you’re gay you don’t have to prove you’re gay. Her rhetoric is identical to the anti gay hysteria of the 80s/90s
Gay people were not asking to falsify their birth certificates or to remove existing rights for other groups. They were asking - rightly - to have the same legal rights (eg marriage) as others.
People with gender dysphoria have had the same legal rights as other groups since 2004 and reinforced by the Equality Act. Rightly so.
What no-one has explained is why people who do NOT have gender dysphoria - eg a man with, say, autogynephilia (a sexual fetish whereby men get sexual satisfaction from dressing up as women) - should have the legal right to change gender and call themselves women. Why?
The other comparison with S.28 is well set out by the Scottish lesbian writer Sally Wainwright in a recent article in The Times. According to equality lawyers, the effect of the Haldane judgment is that women-only associations would have to admit men who have a GRC because they are legally female. So a lesbian-only association would not be able to exclude a man with a GRC who claims that he is a female attracted to other females. Bluntly, lesbians would be pushed partly back into the closet.
Scare-mongering?
No - see what Stonewall has said accusing lesbians of being like racists etc if they exclude physical males from their dating pool. Seek also the "cotton ceiling" training.
No - precisely this has happened in Tasmania which passed a law on self-ID similar to the Scottish Bill and where a court has ruled that as a result lesbians cannot exclude physical males from lesbian meetings / events etc.
Socially progressive?
I am old enough to remember when women who didn't want to have sex with a particular man would be accused of being a lesbian or, if you were a lesbian, you were told that all you needed was sex with a man. Now lesbians are being told that it is transphobic for them not to be attracted to male bodies.
Again, I ask: what is socially progressive about this?
Badenoch believes that self-identification — the ability to change gender without medical diagnosis — puts women and girls at risk from predators. “We have no problem with that in the sense that we want people who are trans to be able to live their lives freely and as they wish,” she says. “The problem is that self-identification also makes life a lot easier for other people we don’t want to have those sorts of freedoms. Predators would be able to exploit any system that says you can just say you are what you are.”
“It’s also quite bad for trans people. They then get conflated and associated with the predators and people who are looking to do bad things. That’s why having a stricter regime rather than a loose regime is quite important. The problem is around the rhetoric. Rather than having a disagreement on whether you think self-identification is OK or not OK, people who have a different view are then abused, insulted, called transphobic. That’s what has really toxified the debate, and made a lot of people scared to say what they think.”
If you’re gay you don’t have to prove you’re gay. Her rhetoric is identical to the anti gay hysteria of the 80s/90s
Gay people were not asking to falsify their birth certificates or to remove existing rights for other groups. They were asking - rightly - to have the same legal rights (eg marriage) as others.
People with gender dysphoria have had the same legal rights as other groups since 2004 and reinforced by the Equality Act. Rightly so.
What no-one has explained is why people who do NOT have gender dysphoria - eg a man with, say, autogynephilia (a sexual fetish whereby men get sexual satisfaction from dressing up as women) - should have the legal right to change gender and call themselves women. Why?
The other comparison with S.28 is well set out by the Scottish lesbian writer Sally Wainwright in a recent article in The Times. According to equality lawyers, the effect of the Haldane judgment is that women-only associations would have to admit men who have a GRC because they are legally female. So a lesbian-only association would not be able to exclude a man with a GRC who claims that he is a female attracted to other females. Bluntly, lesbians would be pushed partly back into the closet.
Scare-mongering?
No - see what Stonewall has said accusing lesbians of being like racists etc if they exclude physical males from their dating pool. Seek also the "cotton ceiling" training.
No - precisely this has happened in Tasmania which passed a law on self-ID similar to the Scottish Bill and where a court has ruled that as a result lesbians cannot exclude physical males from lesbian meetings / events etc.
Socially progressive?
I am old enough to remember when women who didn't want to have sex with a particular man would be accused of being a lesbian or, if you were a lesbian, you were told that all you needed was sex with a man. Now lesbians are being told that it is transphobic for them not to be attracted to male bodies.
Again, I ask: what is socially progressive about this?
the western world (especially Scotland) has gone bonkers
SeanT’s/Leon’s greatest PB crime was to convince a lot of less gifted minds and writers on here that they can do the dismissive sign-off as well as him!
That’s one of the multiple weird things about the US. It’s basically now normalised if you are old and rich enough (which by default all media personalities and most politicians are) but you still end up look like a fucking alien.
from Buzz Aldrin's wiki page:
In 2007, Aldrin confirmed to Time magazine that he had recently had a face-lift, joking that the g-forces he was exposed to in space "caused a sagging jowl that needed some attention."
SeanT’s/Leon’s greatest PB crime was to convince a lot of less gifted minds and writers on here that they can do the dismissive sign-off as well as him!
I think you’re all being very hard on the Germans.
They remember what happened the last time they sent tanks into Ukraine.
Ironically, they were among the first four nations to recognise Ukrainian independence in 1918.
Or was it Germans were still an occupying enemy army in Ukraine when Lenin signed a non aggression pact with the Germans - many Russians upset about that rounded on Lenin about it, they wanted Russia to fight on and kick the Germans out of Ukraine.
SeanT’s/Leon’s greatest PB crime was to convince a lot of less gifted minds and writers on here that they can do the dismissive sign-off as well as him!
has he been banned again?
I felt a great disturbance on the Internet. As if millions of SeanTs cried out and were suddenly silenced
That’s one of the multiple weird things about the US. It’s basically now normalised if you are old and rich enough (which by default all media personalities and most politicians are) but you still end up look like a fucking alien.
SeanT’s/Leon’s greatest PB crime was to convince a lot of less gifted minds and writers on here that they can do the dismissive sign-off as well as him!
has he been banned again?
I felt a great disturbance on the Internet. As if millions of SeanTs cried out and were suddenly silenced
Completely off topic, but I thought some of you might like this bit of Americana: I was watching the UCLA-Arizona basketball game, when one of the changing signs flashed up an ad for the Tohono O'odham Nation. (It was probably for one of the three casinos the tribe owns, but I only saw part of the ad, so I can't say for sure.)
(The game is being played in Tucson, in the southeast corner state. The tribe's very extensive lands are to the west of Tucson. Since their lands border Mexico, the tribe has many problems with illegal border crossings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohono_Oʼodham_Nation )
SeanT’s/Leon’s greatest PB crime was to convince a lot of less gifted minds and writers on here that they can do the dismissive sign-off as well as him!
has he been banned again?
I felt a great disturbance on the Internet. As if millions of SeanTs cried out and were suddenly silenced
I think you’re all being very hard on the Germans.
They remember what happened the last time they sent tanks into Ukraine.
Would it help if they were told they're needed in The Ardennes?
I think the problem is that they are being told that they can't invade Poland first.
I heard an interesting rumour - that the reason that the Leopard situation in the German military has been obfuscated is not so much the politicians.
Apparently the bureaucrats in uniform are a bit embarrassed by the number of Panzers they have that actually work.
They don't need to send their own, merely authorise others.
It does seem that a large part of both NATO and Russian Tanks and other Vehicles are non functional. Military equipment takes a lot of maintenence, and that is an easy source of economies, as indeed it is with capital equipment in the NHS and other public services.
That’s one of the multiple weird things about the US. It’s basically now normalised if you are old and rich enough (which by default all media personalities and most politicians are) but you still end up look like a fucking alien.
from Buzz Aldrin's wiki page:
In 2007, Aldrin confirmed to Time magazine that he had recently had a face-lift, joking that the g-forces he was exposed to in space "caused a sagging jowl that needed some attention."
SSI - Personally care LESS about Buzz Aldrin's plastic surgery, than I do about the trans debate (at least as currently debated).
As for his latest commission of matrimony, more power to his arm . . . and/or any other relevant appendages.
For even super-geezers need love too!
Especially IF they are also global icons like Buzz Aldrin, who made significant contributions to human endeavor.
I watched him on TV in a Somerset farmhouse - we were camping and were invited by the landowner to come and see the Apollo 11 landings. Never forgotten that.
Another subject (like so many others) on which I don't have a strong view. I suppose it depends on your perspective - from a personal perspective, the 2000s were better than the 2010s but that won't be true for everyone.
There's absolutely no doubt in material terms we are advancing. That doesn't mean everyone is doing well and relative poverty in this country remains a matter of concern and while that's not an argument for managed equality per se it's an argument for concentrating effort on improving the lot of the poorest whether through education or more direct help.
There's perhaps a deeper, more spiritual if you like, malaise currently and for many the pandemic, whether you endured it or not, was a profoundly unsettling experience though there have been those who have seen it as a reason for a life change and that's fine.
Some claimed the post-pandemic 2020s would be analogous to the 1920s as people sought entertainment and hedonism as a way of perhaps forgetting what had gone before. I'm not so sure this time.
I am sure human ingenuity will prevail and problems which seem intractable now can and will be resolved in time - that's not to say there will be some darker days ahead in the short term but overall I'm hopeful. I'm also convinced once we solve one set of problems new challenges will emerge.
Just such a shame it has been cut off from Dorchester by the bypass. Last time Mrs C and I stayed (near Poundbury) the only footpath from a safe crossing was being ploughed up/oversprayed (I forget) by a tractor. We ended up wandering along the aqueduct to the north-west and along the river and what turned out to be the Roman road to the east and seeing Hardy's birthplace almost on it -
The Roman Road runs straight and bare As the pale parting-line in hair Across the heath. And thoughtful men Contrast its days of Now and Then, And delve, and measure, and compare;
Visioning on the vacant air Helmed legionaries, who proudly rear The Eagle, as they pace again The Roman Road.
But no tall brass-helmed legionnaire Haunts it for me. Uprises there A mother's form upon my ken, Guiding my infant steps, as when We walked that ancient thoroughfare, The Roman Road.
I think you’re all being very hard on the Germans.
They remember what happened the last time they sent tanks into Ukraine.
Would it help if they were told they're needed in The Ardennes?
I think the problem is that they are being told that they can't invade Poland first.
I heard an interesting rumour - that the reason that the Leopard situation in the German military has been obfuscated is not so much the politicians.
Apparently the bureaucrats in uniform are a bit embarrassed by the number of Panzers they have that actually work.
They don't need to send their own, merely authorise others.
It does seem that a large part of both NATO and Russian Tanks and other Vehicles are non functional. Military equipment takes a lot of maintenence, and that is an easy source of economies, as indeed it is with capital equipment in the NHS and other public services.
Well, government ministers are busy with the important stuff like correcting tax mistakes. Sheesh. And No.10 doesn't just wallpaper itself you know. And there's the repairs to the children's swing in the garden. It's all go!
Shock horror that German tanks could be used against the only army that is a threat to Europe. What's the point of getting them if you have to ask Scholz's permission to use them?
From an interesting thread by former tank division commander Mark Hertling.
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1616792754088214529 -There's a reason tankers are called "DATs" (dumb-ass-tankers). It's because they break things in their tanks & then rely on maintainers/master gunners/loggies to fix it. -Older tanks break more often (the M1 was fielded in the 1980's) 8/
-Having fired T-72s, Chieftains, Challengers, Leo IIs & Abrams, the M1 requires the most turret training.
-Same true for the engine. The pack "blows" when drivers aren't trained. A FUPP (the combined engine/trans) is expensive (about $1.5 million) & then must be replaced. 9/
… -"if the Iraqi's, Saudi's, Egypt troops can use the M1, the UKR will have no issues."
Iraqis paid billions for M1s w/ a permanent GD maintenance contract & a 5-year training period.
Saudis bought M1A2s w/ a 7 year training program, with maintenance contract still in place.15/…
Read the whole thing if you’re interested in the debate about the practicality of Leopards vs the M1 Abrams.
Shock horror that German tanks could be used against the only army that is a threat to Europe. What's the point of getting them if you have to ask Scholz's permission to use them?
Yep. The German and Swiss weapons manufacturers might find some of their traditional markets reducing rapidly. They probably think they'll make up that shortfall with their new friends...
Badenoch believes that self-identification — the ability to change gender without medical diagnosis — puts women and girls at risk from predators. “We have no problem with that in the sense that we want people who are trans to be able to live their lives freely and as they wish,” she says. “The problem is that self-identification also makes life a lot easier for other people we don’t want to have those sorts of freedoms. Predators would be able to exploit any system that says you can just say you are what you are.”
“It’s also quite bad for trans people. They then get conflated and associated with the predators and people who are looking to do bad things. That’s why having a stricter regime rather than a loose regime is quite important. The problem is around the rhetoric. Rather than having a disagreement on whether you think self-identification is OK or not OK, people who have a different view are then abused, insulted, called transphobic. That’s what has really toxified the debate, and made a lot of people scared to say what they think.”
If you’re gay you don’t have to prove you’re gay. Her rhetoric is identical to the anti gay hysteria of the 80s/90s
Gay people were not asking to falsify their birth certificates or to remove existing rights for other groups. They were asking - rightly - to have the same legal rights (eg marriage) as others.
People with gender dysphoria have had the same legal rights as other groups since 2004 and reinforced by the Equality Act. Rightly so.
What no-one has explained is why people who do NOT have gender dysphoria - eg a man with, say, autogynephilia (a sexual fetish whereby men get sexual satisfaction from dressing up as women) - should have the legal right to change gender and call themselves women. Why?
The other comparison with S.28 is well set out by the Scottish lesbian writer Sally Wainwright in a recent article in The Times. According to equality lawyers, the effect of the Haldane judgment is that women-only associations would have to admit men who have a GRC because they are legally female. So a lesbian-only association would not be able to exclude a man with a GRC who claims that he is a female attracted to other females. Bluntly, lesbians would be pushed partly back into the closet.
Scare-mongering?
No - see what Stonewall has said accusing lesbians of being like racists etc if they exclude physical males from their dating pool. Seek also the "cotton ceiling" training.
No - precisely this has happened in Tasmania which passed a law on self-ID similar to the Scottish Bill and where a court has ruled that as a result lesbians cannot exclude physical males from lesbian meetings / events etc.
Socially progressive?
I am old enough to remember when women who didn't want to have sex with a particular man would be accused of being a lesbian or, if you were a lesbian, you were told that all you needed was sex with a man. Now lesbians are being told that it is transphobic for them not to be attracted to male bodies.
Again, I ask: what is socially progressive about this?
I think you’re all being very hard on the Germans.
They remember what happened the last time they sent tanks into Ukraine.
Would it help if they were told they're needed in The Ardennes?
I think the problem is that they are being told that they can't invade Poland first.
I heard an interesting rumour - that the reason that the Leopard situation in the German military has been obfuscated is not so much the politicians.
Apparently the bureaucrats in uniform are a bit embarrassed by the number of Panzers they have that actually work.
They don't need to send their own, merely authorise others.
It does seem that a large part of both NATO and Russian Tanks and other Vehicles are non functional. Military equipment takes a lot of maintenence, and that is an easy source of economies, as indeed it is with capital equipment in the NHS and other public services.
Well, government ministers are busy with the important stuff like correcting tax mistakes. Sheesh. And No.10 doesn't just wallpaper itself you know. And there's the repairs to the children's swing in the garden. It's all go!
It’s why unannounced exercises are popular with certain types of General.
There was a mid-western city in the US that used to get practised bombed by SAC whenever Le May felt like it. Since it was all radar offset bombing, they never knew…
I think you’re all being very hard on the Germans.
They remember what happened the last time they sent tanks into Ukraine.
Would it help if they were told they're needed in The Ardennes?
I think the problem is that they are being told that they can't invade Poland first.
I heard an interesting rumour - that the reason that the Leopard situation in the German military has been obfuscated is not so much the politicians.
Apparently the bureaucrats in uniform are a bit embarrassed by the number of Panzers they have that actually work.
How does that explain the position on everyone else’s Leopards ?
My guess (and JJ has also mentioned similar) is that both Leopards and M1s will be vulnerable without full air superiority, and neither Germany nor the US wants the bad publicity of the world witnessing their best tanks being destroyed on the battlefield. So the Germans won't send them unless the Americans do, and the Americans have come up with odd excuses as to why their tanks can't possibly be used in Europe.
I think you’re all being very hard on the Germans.
They remember what happened the last time they sent tanks into Ukraine.
Would it help if they were told they're needed in The Ardennes?
I think the problem is that they are being told that they can't invade Poland first.
I heard an interesting rumour - that the reason that the Leopard situation in the German military has been obfuscated is not so much the politicians.
Apparently the bureaucrats in uniform are a bit embarrassed by the number of Panzers they have that actually work.
How does that explain the position on everyone else’s Leopards ?
My guess (and JJ has also mentioned similar) is that both Leopards and M1s will be vulnerable without full air superiority, and neither Germany nor the US wants the bad publicity of the world witnessing their best tanks being destroyed on the battlefield. So the Germans won't send them unless the Americans do, and the Americans have come up with odd excuses as to why their tanks can't possibly be used in Europe.
They’d be no more vulnerable than the tanks the Ukrainians are using now.
The Iraqis managed to lose a number of M1s - took them a fair while to get up to a certain level of competence.
I think you’re all being very hard on the Germans.
They remember what happened the last time they sent tanks into Ukraine.
Would it help if they were told they're needed in The Ardennes?
I think the problem is that they are being told that they can't invade Poland first.
I heard an interesting rumour - that the reason that the Leopard situation in the German military has been obfuscated is not so much the politicians.
Apparently the bureaucrats in uniform are a bit embarrassed by the number of Panzers they have that actually work.
How does that explain the position on everyone else’s Leopards ?
My guess (and JJ has also mentioned similar) is that both Leopards and M1s will be vulnerable without full air superiority, and neither Germany nor the US wants the bad publicity of the world witnessing their best tanks being destroyed on the battlefield. So the Germans won't send them unless the Americans do, and the Americans have come up with odd excuses as to why their tanks can't possibly be used in Europe.
They are worse than useless if they can’t be used.
We, 🇱🇹 🇱🇻🇪🇪 Foreign Ministers, call on Germany to provide Leopard tanks to Ukraine now. This is needed to stop Russian aggression, help Ukraine and restore peace in Europe quickly. Germany as the leading European power has special responsibility in this regard. https://twitter.com/GLandsbergis/status/1616699923994660865
I think you’re all being very hard on the Germans.
They remember what happened the last time they sent tanks into Ukraine.
Would it help if they were told they're needed in The Ardennes?
I think the problem is that they are being told that they can't invade Poland first.
I heard an interesting rumour - that the reason that the Leopard situation in the German military has been obfuscated is not so much the politicians.
Apparently the bureaucrats in uniform are a bit embarrassed by the number of Panzers they have that actually work.
How does that explain the position on everyone else’s Leopards ?
My guess (and JJ has also mentioned similar) is that both Leopards and M1s will be vulnerable without full air superiority, and neither Germany nor the US wants the bad publicity of the world witnessing their best tanks being destroyed on the battlefield. So the Germans won't send them unless the Americans do, and the Americans have come up with odd excuses as to why their tanks can't possibly be used in Europe.
They’d be no more vulnerable than the tanks the Ukrainians are using now.
The Iraqis managed to lose a number of M1s - took them a fair while to get up to a certain level of competence.
No, of course they wouldn't, but that's not the point. The point is that without proper air support, they may well not be much better that what the Ukrainians have now. And nobody wants to see Leopards or Abrams tanks blown up and/or falling into enemy hands. Perhaps more time is needed to work out how the tanks can best be supported from the air.
I think you’re all being very hard on the Germans.
They remember what happened the last time they sent tanks into Ukraine.
Would it help if they were told they're needed in The Ardennes?
I think the problem is that they are being told that they can't invade Poland first.
I heard an interesting rumour - that the reason that the Leopard situation in the German military has been obfuscated is not so much the politicians.
Apparently the bureaucrats in uniform are a bit embarrassed by the number of Panzers they have that actually work.
How does that explain the position on everyone else’s Leopards ?
My guess (and JJ has also mentioned similar) is that both Leopards and M1s will be vulnerable without full air superiority, and neither Germany nor the US wants the bad publicity of the world witnessing their best tanks being destroyed on the battlefield. So the Germans won't send them unless the Americans do, and the Americans have come up with odd excuses as to why their tanks can't possibly be used in Europe.
They’d be no more vulnerable than the tanks the Ukrainians are using now.
The Iraqis managed to lose a number of M1s - took them a fair while to get up to a certain level of competence.
No, of course they wouldn't, but that's not the point. The point is that without proper air support, they may well not be much better that what the Ukrainians have now. And nobody wants to see Leopards or Abrams tanks blown up and/or falling into enemy hands. Perhaps more time is needed to work out how the tanks can best be supported from the air.
More tanks is better than fewer tanks, even if they are vulnerable.
Don't let the perfect kill the good. Every country who wants peace in Europe should send Ukraine as much armour (of all types) as they can.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
No. As I understand it, Scholz wants full US commitment to any escalation in terms of weapons supplies. Maybe that's stupid, but I find it easier to understand than the US position.
The US is sending a whole new tranche of weapons. They've sent Bradleys. The Abrams are very heavy on fuel and will take longer to train on. As well as the logistical difficulties of getting them there. And most of the Leopard tanks aren't even German. I'm sorry it just looks like an excuse.
The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine, so why doesn't the US want Ukraine to have tanks?
You mention Bradleys. Ukraine also asked for these and the roughly equivalent German Marders many months ago. Germany also said "not alone" on Marders, the US said no. When 2 weeks ago the US announced it would send Bradleys Germany announced it would send Marders on the very same day.
I think Germany should send Leopards, at least allow others to, without a US commitment on Abrams tanks, but it's just a bit weird to hear various versions of "Germany is crazy/wants Russia to win" or whatever from people who seem find the US position perfectly reasonable.
"The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine"
No.
The thing that would get Leopard 2's to Ukraine is Germany saying: "Here, have these Leopards."
Linking it to the US's actions is just perverse. Either it is the correct thing to send them, or it is not.
And yet Germany, however wrongly, has consistently linked them, as they did with Marders and other types of weapons. This is a fact that you really seem to have difficulty with for some reason.
It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. Why do you deny an obvious reality? It's just weird.
Germany's position is such that they invoke Schrödinger's tank: the provision of tanks is both linked to, and not linked to, US provision of Abrams. Sometimes they say it is, sometimes they say it is not. They have not been consistent in the least.
"It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. "
It is not a fact, as it is unproven. I'm dubious about it, given Germany's behaviour so far. They might well give some excuse, or promise them in 2026.
It is quite simple: if Germany wants Ukraine to have Leopard 2's, give them them. At the very least, let other send theirs.
They don't.
They have been entirely consistent on this for months, until somewhat ambiguous statements in the last 2 days seemed to indicate there might be a change of policy - which may still happen.
Past behaviour supports the idea that if the US promises Germany will follow, but you seem uninterested in facts.
I think you are being wilfully obtuse on this, or maybe you just can't stand the idea that "Germany" isn't entirely and uniquely and shamefully to blame.
What do you think of US refusal of tanks? To me it seems worse, and more worrying and more disappointing.
To make it clear: I have nothing against Germany or Germans. I do think the German government is being absolutely and curiously stupid over this, though.
The German position has been inconsistent, as far as I can tell. And I am interested in facts.
I can't comprehend the German position.
That probably means I'm not informed enough about German politics but, if that's the real reason, then they have bigger problems than I thought.
The entire German geopolitical strategy in relation to Russia for many decades has been completely destroyed by the war. It's not surprising that it would be difficult for them to adjust. It's meant they've been one of the more reluctant parts of the western alliance during the war, and it would be easier to maintain the unity of that alliance if they would get a grip on themselves, but I think that, all things considered, they've done a lot better than I might have expected during the week before the war started, when RAF supply flights were bypassing German airspace.
So, yes, it's frustrating, but I reckon they'll get to the right place eventually.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
Yeah, bollocks though - Brexit is just the scapegoat, as the EU was before.
We'd be having exactly the same issues inside the EU (and, indeed, it is those that led in large part to the vote to Leave) and so if we want to get past this and to solutions we need to put this aside and focus on the real problems, which are essentially domestic.
So you’re essentially admitting that Brexit was pointless, and the idea that Brexit would solve all our problems was bollocks? That I’ve lost my cherished European citizenship and freedom of movement for no real reason?
But I suppose it’s all good anyway, ‘cos now the Tories can take a wrecking ball to all those pesky regs they despise, like worker and environmental protections. Potentially, if not wilfully, causing chaos and dodging parliamentary oversight of new laws via the EU Retained Law Bill. No deal by another name.
Taking Back Control, indeed.
Wonderful.
Clearly, this level of debate is beyond you so you’re trying to narrow it down to something much more simple that your mind can both comprehend and engage with.
You knock yourself out, but I have better things to do with my time.
You don't engage with posters who disagree with your rather simplistic view of the world, instead you choose to be rude and dismissive.
I think you’re all being very hard on the Germans.
They remember what happened the last time they sent tanks into Ukraine.
Ironically, they were among the first four nations to recognise Ukrainian independence in 1918.
Or was it Germans were still an occupying enemy army in Ukraine when Lenin signed a non aggression pact with the Germans - many Russians upset about that rounded on Lenin about it, they wanted Russia to fight on and kick the Germans out of Ukraine.
Fanny Kaplan was a Ukrainian born Jew.
There were not one but TWO Treaties of Brest-Litovsk:
An important moment in European support for Ukraine. The Talinn pledge just released by the UK, Baltics, Poland, Netherlands, Slovakia, Czech and Denmark. Full text here.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
Yeah, bollocks though - Brexit is just the scapegoat, as the EU was before.
We'd be having exactly the same issues inside the EU (and, indeed, it is those that led in large part to the vote to Leave) and so if we want to get past this and to solutions we need to put this aside and focus on the real problems, which are essentially domestic.
So you’re essentially admitting that Brexit was pointless, and the idea that Brexit would solve all our problems was bollocks? That I’ve lost my cherished European citizenship and freedom of movement for no real reason?
But I suppose it’s all good anyway, ‘cos now the Tories can take a wrecking ball to all those pesky regs they despise, like worker and environmental protections. Potentially, if not wilfully, causing chaos and dodging parliamentary oversight of new laws via the EU Retained Law Bill. No deal by another name.
Taking Back Control, indeed.
Wonderful.
Clearly, this level of debate is beyond you so you’re trying to narrow it down to something much more simple that your mind can both comprehend and engage with.
You knock yourself out, but I have better things to do with my time.
You don't engage with posters who disagree with your rather simplistic view of the world, instead you choose to be rude and dismissive.
One of the problems is that people tend to have quite fixed views on things, especially things as contentious and long running as Brexit. I’d suspect that there are few on this board whose opinions are just waiting to be swayed by the correctly crafted argument. It’s certainly the case that the EU bogeyman was blamed for a lot of stuff. It would have been best kept that way. The SNP have the ‘English’ and ‘Westminster’ in that very same role. Some might reflect on what happens when the troublesome fox is troubling no more. And now some are casting Brexit in the bogeyman role…
All three have a germ of truth buried somewhere. There were some issues with our EU membership (nothing that couldn’t have been resolved, mind). There are issues for Scotland with the current settlement, but the SNP cannot fairly blame Westminster for everything. And Brexit isn’t the sole reason for the UKs current struggles, but it’s certainly part of it.
With the 50th anniversary of Dark Side of the Moon the anti woke brigade are getting up in arms with the rainbow effect from the prism. An album released before the rainbow flag was created. They clearly are bonkers and it is very sad that Dark Side of the Moon is clearly unknown to them.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
No. As I understand it, Scholz wants full US commitment to any escalation in terms of weapons supplies. Maybe that's stupid, but I find it easier to understand than the US position.
The US is sending a whole new tranche of weapons. They've sent Bradleys. The Abrams are very heavy on fuel and will take longer to train on. As well as the logistical difficulties of getting them there. And most of the Leopard tanks aren't even German. I'm sorry it just looks like an excuse.
The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine, so why doesn't the US want Ukraine to have tanks?
You mention Bradleys. Ukraine also asked for these and the roughly equivalent German Marders many months ago. Germany also said "not alone" on Marders, the US said no. When 2 weeks ago the US announced it would send Bradleys Germany announced it would send Marders on the very same day.
I think Germany should send Leopards, at least allow others to, without a US commitment on Abrams tanks, but it's just a bit weird to hear various versions of "Germany is crazy/wants Russia to win" or whatever from people who seem find the US position perfectly reasonable.
"The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine"
No.
The thing that would get Leopard 2's to Ukraine is Germany saying: "Here, have these Leopards."
Linking it to the US's actions is just perverse. Either it is the correct thing to send them, or it is not.
And yet Germany, however wrongly, has consistently linked them, as they did with Marders and other types of weapons. This is a fact that you really seem to have difficulty with for some reason.
It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. Why do you deny an obvious reality? It's just weird.
Germany's position is such that they invoke Schrödinger's tank: the provision of tanks is both linked to, and not linked to, US provision of Abrams. Sometimes they say it is, sometimes they say it is not. They have not been consistent in the least.
"It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. "
It is not a fact, as it is unproven. I'm dubious about it, given Germany's behaviour so far. They might well give some excuse, or promise them in 2026.
It is quite simple: if Germany wants Ukraine to have Leopard 2's, give them them. At the very least, let other send theirs.
They don't.
They have been entirely consistent on this for months, until somewhat ambiguous statements in the last 2 days seemed to indicate there might be a change of policy - which may still happen.
Past behaviour supports the idea that if the US promises Germany will follow, but you seem uninterested in facts.
I think you are being wilfully obtuse on this, or maybe you just can't stand the idea that "Germany" isn't entirely and uniquely and shamefully to blame.
What do you think of US refusal of tanks? To me it seems worse, and more worrying and more disappointing.
To make it clear: I have nothing against Germany or Germans. I do think the German government is being absolutely and curiously stupid over this, though.
The German position has been inconsistent, as far as I can tell. And I am interested in facts.
I can't comprehend the German position.
That probably means I'm not informed enough about German politics but, if that's the real reason, then they have bigger problems than I thought.
The entire German geopolitical strategy in relation to Russia for many decades has been completely destroyed by the war. It's not surprising that it would be difficult for them to adjust. It's meant they've been one of the more reluctant parts of the western alliance during the war, and it would be easier to maintain the unity of that alliance if they would get a grip on themselves, but I think that, all things considered, they've done a lot better than I might have expected during the week before the war started, when RAF supply flights were bypassing German airspace.
So, yes, it's frustrating, but I reckon they'll get to the right place eventually.
The current BBC article on the issue has some interesting statements:
"Germany has insisted that it is not blocking the delivery of German-made Leopard tanks, which other countries want to send."
"German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said opinions remained divided over supplying Leopards, and he denied that Berlin was blocking such a move."
"Mr Pistorius said Berlin was prepared to move quickly if there was consensus among allies, though he could not say when a decision on the tanks might be made."
This seems to imply that it is not Germany that is blocking the deployment of the Leopard tanks, but somebody else. It would suggest that NATO as a whole is reluctant to deploy the tanks, for whatever reason.
"History is looking at us & Germany has, unfortunately, just failed," Strack-Zimmermann,🇩🇪parliament's defense committee chair."At very least, it'd have been right to give partners [🇵🇱]green light" https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1616805442600030210
"History is looking at us & Germany has, unfortunately, just failed," Strack-Zimmermann,🇩🇪parliament's defense committee chair."At very least, it'd have been right to give partners [🇵🇱]green light" https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1616805442600030210
They failed with tanks in the Ukraine last time too…
"History is looking at us & Germany has, unfortunately, just failed," Strack-Zimmermann,🇩🇪parliament's defense committee chair."At very least, it'd have been right to give partners [🇵🇱]green light" https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1616805442600030210
They failed with tanks in the Ukraine last time too…
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
Yeah, bollocks though - Brexit is just the scapegoat, as the EU was before.
We'd be having exactly the same issues inside the EU (and, indeed, it is those that led in large part to the vote to Leave) and so if we want to get past this and to solutions we need to put this aside and focus on the real problems, which are essentially domestic.
So you’re essentially admitting that Brexit was pointless, and the idea that Brexit would solve all our problems was bollocks? That I’ve lost my cherished European citizenship and freedom of movement for no real reason?
But I suppose it’s all good anyway, ‘cos now the Tories can take a wrecking ball to all those pesky regs they despise, like worker and environmental protections. Potentially, if not wilfully, causing chaos and dodging parliamentary oversight of new laws via the EU Retained Law Bill. No deal by another name.
Taking Back Control, indeed.
Wonderful.
Clearly, this level of debate is beyond you so you’re trying to narrow it down to something much more simple that your mind can both comprehend and engage with.
You knock yourself out, but I have better things to do with my time.
You don't engage with posters who disagree with your rather simplistic view of the world, instead you choose to be rude and dismissive.
One of the problems is that people tend to have quite fixed views on things, especially things as contentious and long running as Brexit. I’d suspect that there are few on this board whose opinions are just waiting to be swayed by the correctly crafted argument. It’s certainly the case that the EU bogeyman was blamed for a lot of stuff. It would have been best kept that way. The SNP have the ‘English’ and ‘Westminster’ in that very same role. Some might reflect on what happens when the troublesome fox is troubling no more. And now some are casting Brexit in the bogeyman role…
All three have a germ of truth buried somewhere. There were some issues with our EU membership (nothing that couldn’t have been resolved, mind). There are issues for Scotland with the current settlement, but the SNP cannot fairly blame Westminster for everything. And Brexit isn’t the sole reason for the UKs current struggles, but it’s certainly part of it.
The idea that we could do anything to resolve the issues with the EU after having failed to do so for 40 years shows the same disconnect from reality as is exhibited by the No Dealer Brexiteers. It is simply fanciful.
Either you accepted our membership of a flawed institution which was incapable of meaningful reform and destined for something even most Remainers didn't want or you accepted we had to leave. Those were the choices. Nothing else was on the table.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
Yeah, bollocks though - Brexit is just the scapegoat, as the EU was before.
We'd be having exactly the same issues inside the EU (and, indeed, it is those that led in large part to the vote to Leave) and so if we want to get past this and to solutions we need to put this aside and focus on the real problems, which are essentially domestic.
So you’re essentially admitting that Brexit was pointless, and the idea that Brexit would solve all our problems was bollocks? That I’ve lost my cherished European citizenship and freedom of movement for no real reason?
But I suppose it’s all good anyway, ‘cos now the Tories can take a wrecking ball to all those pesky regs they despise, like worker and environmental protections. Potentially, if not wilfully, causing chaos and dodging parliamentary oversight of new laws via the EU Retained Law Bill. No deal by another name.
Taking Back Control, indeed.
Wonderful.
Clearly, this level of debate is beyond you so you’re trying to narrow it down to something much more simple that your mind can both comprehend and engage with.
You knock yourself out, but I have better things to do with my time.
You don't engage with posters who disagree with your rather simplistic view of the world, instead you choose to be rude and dismissive.
One of the problems is that people tend to have quite fixed views on things, especially things as contentious and long running as Brexit. I’d suspect that there are few on this board whose opinions are just waiting to be swayed by the correctly crafted argument. It’s certainly the case that the EU bogeyman was blamed for a lot of stuff. It would have been best kept that way. The SNP have the ‘English’ and ‘Westminster’ in that very same role. Some might reflect on what happens when the troublesome fox is troubling no more. And now some are casting Brexit in the bogeyman role…
All three have a germ of truth buried somewhere. There were some issues with our EU membership (nothing that couldn’t have been resolved, mind). There are issues for Scotland with the current settlement, but the SNP cannot fairly blame Westminster for everything. And Brexit isn’t the sole reason for the UKs current struggles, but it’s certainly part of it.
The idea that we could do anything to resolve the issues with the EU after having failed to do so for 40 years shows the same disconnect from reality as is exhibited by the No Dealer Brexiteers. It is simply fanciful.
Either you accepted our membership of a flawed institution which was incapable of meaningful reform and destined for something even most Remainers didn't want or you accepted we had to leave. Those were the choices. Nothing else was on the table.
We had choices around benefits. We had choices when it came to how quickly to admit citizens from new EU members. We could have been more french in our behaviour and paid lip service far more often.
If benefits were made contributory then new arrivals couldn’t be accused of coming to the U.K. for benefits, as they often were. But we didn’t do that, and so resentment built up and the idea that freedom of movement = free council houses for Bulgarians on arrival. And thus Brexit.
I don’t agree with OGH’s second point in the lead. Even someone who believes Starmer will be next PM and believes that he is wonderful, could easily be pessimistic about having to endure potentially almost two more years of this lot, and about a dozen other things in the wider environment.
We are doing shit at the moment because we have erected trade barriers on ourselves, producing a massive drag on our economy, making it even more dificult to pay for our lockdown bills and expanding NHS and social care needs. I can't see anything improving in the short term because we have a shit government from a shit party with tax grifters in all areas of power.
Yeah, bollocks though - Brexit is just the scapegoat, as the EU was before.
We'd be having exactly the same issues inside the EU (and, indeed, it is those that led in large part to the vote to Leave) and so if we want to get past this and to solutions we need to put this aside and focus on the real problems, which are essentially domestic.
So you’re essentially admitting that Brexit was pointless, and the idea that Brexit would solve all our problems was bollocks? That I’ve lost my cherished European citizenship and freedom of movement for no real reason?
But I suppose it’s all good anyway, ‘cos now the Tories can take a wrecking ball to all those pesky regs they despise, like worker and environmental protections. Potentially, if not wilfully, causing chaos and dodging parliamentary oversight of new laws via the EU Retained Law Bill. No deal by another name.
Taking Back Control, indeed.
Wonderful.
Clearly, this level of debate is beyond you so you’re trying to narrow it down to something much more simple that your mind can both comprehend and engage with.
You knock yourself out, but I have better things to do with my time.
You don't engage with posters who disagree with your rather simplistic view of the world, instead you choose to be rude and dismissive.
One of the problems is that people tend to have quite fixed views on things, especially things as contentious and long running as Brexit. I’d suspect that there are few on this board whose opinions are just waiting to be swayed by the correctly crafted argument. It’s certainly the case that the EU bogeyman was blamed for a lot of stuff. It would have been best kept that way. The SNP have the ‘English’ and ‘Westminster’ in that very same role. Some might reflect on what happens when the troublesome fox is troubling no more. And now some are casting Brexit in the bogeyman role…
All three have a germ of truth buried somewhere. There were some issues with our EU membership (nothing that couldn’t have been resolved, mind). There are issues for Scotland with the current settlement, but the SNP cannot fairly blame Westminster for everything. And Brexit isn’t the sole reason for the UKs current struggles, but it’s certainly part of it.
The idea that we could do anything to resolve the issues with the EU after having failed to do so for 40 years shows the same disconnect from reality as is exhibited by the No Dealer Brexiteers. It is simply fanciful.
Either you accepted our membership of a flawed institution which was incapable of meaningful reform and destined for something even most Remainers didn't want or you accepted we had to leave. Those were the choices. Nothing else was on the table.
We seem lumbered with the Houses of Parliament and the respective ways in which they are ‘resourced’ yet both are flawed institutions incapable of reform and delivering outcomes and behaviour that very many people don’t want, with nothing else on the table.
Yes, the EU is flawed, but its purpose is both noble and in our own self interest, and as it happens it gave me the only votes of my lifetime in any national election that actually counted for anything.
Comments
But at least you accept that the EU was only ever a scapegoat for our own internally-generated problems.
But I suppose it’s all good anyway, ‘cos now the Tories can take a wrecking ball to all those pesky regs they despise, like worker and environmental protections. Potentially, if not wilfully, causing chaos and dodging parliamentary oversight of new laws via the EU Retained Law Bill. No deal by another name.
Taking Back Control, indeed.
Wonderful.
https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1616853336682123264?s=46&t=XYT8-ckdr6uWJ5pGJ3Bx0Q
16 to buy alcohol?
https://twitter.com/nicolasturgeon/status/1616855984332226560?s=46&t=GWaOsbocaYRZUeRYnD6AAg
Answer: because they *really* don't want to send them.
https://t.co/FpOXTtWS8V
Which in its way shows their naivety or incompetence which in turn perhaps shows the flaw in their plan.
Edit: and I wanted to be a fan of their approach.
https://twitter.com/ScottDuncanWX/status/1616511889978101801?t=i8Ww0gaECs65PoscTWQeKw&s=19
The German position has been inconsistent, as far as I can tell. And I am interested in facts.
You knock yourself out, but I have better things to do with my time.
In my head, Kwarteng decided he wanted to do it that way, and he had a hold over Truss. Why did he want to do it that way? Dunno. Why did he tell all his city friends about it the day before so they could be part of the feeding frenzy? Dunno.
That probably means I'm not informed enough about German politics but, if that's the real reason, then they have bigger problems than I thought.
Outside a café in Glasgow: "The answer is cake, who cares what the question is?"
In diplomacy, you only ask a question when you are sure of the answer. And you also take into account the effect of asking it has.
Asking the German government for the re-export license would put them on the spot. Either they have to grant it. Or they have to refuse. And either way, the fact they’d been asked would come out when the politicians were asked.
Which is why the news that Poland put in a formal request is interesting. Either they’ve decided to ignore the issue of embarrassing Germany, or they’ve got the idea that it won’t be refused.
Like a breath of fresh air.
They remember what happened the last time they sent tanks into Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1616521252419653632?s=46&t=jFIOq6kaw2qTDr8wX2XJxg
People with gender dysphoria have had the same legal rights as other groups since 2004 and reinforced by the Equality Act. Rightly so.
What no-one has explained is why people who do NOT have gender dysphoria - eg a man with, say, autogynephilia (a sexual fetish whereby men get sexual satisfaction from dressing up as women) - should have the legal right to change gender and call themselves women. Why?
The other comparison with S.28 is well set out by the Scottish lesbian writer Sally Wainwright in a recent article in The Times. According to equality lawyers, the effect of the Haldane judgment is that women-only associations would have to admit men who have a GRC because they are legally female. So a lesbian-only association would not be able to exclude a man with a GRC who claims that he is a female attracted to other females. Bluntly, lesbians would be pushed partly back into the closet.
Scare-mongering?
No - see what Stonewall has said accusing lesbians of being like racists etc if they exclude physical males from their dating pool. Seek also the "cotton ceiling" training.
No - precisely this has happened in Tasmania which passed a law on self-ID similar to the Scottish Bill and where a court has ruled that as a result lesbians cannot exclude physical males from lesbian meetings / events etc.
Socially progressive?
I am old enough to remember when women who didn't want to have sex with a particular man would be accused of being a lesbian or, if you were a lesbian, you were told that all you needed was sex with a man. Now lesbians are being told that it is transphobic for them not to be attracted to male bodies.
Again, I ask: what is socially progressive about this?
Same folk who are requesting the Leopards now.
In 2007, Aldrin confirmed to Time magazine that he had recently had a face-lift, joking that the g-forces he was exposed to in space "caused a sagging jowl that needed some attention."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Aldrin
SSI - Personally care LESS about Buzz Aldrin's plastic surgery, than I do about the trans debate (at least as currently debated).
As for his latest commission of matrimony, more power to his arm . . . and/or any other relevant appendages.
For even super-geezers need love too!
Especially IF they are also global icons like Buzz Aldrin, who made significant contributions to human endeavor.
Edit - 1 person. Plan to stay on island about a week, travel light, change where I stay as it suits me.
Apparently the bureaucrats in uniform are a bit embarrassed by the number of Panzers they have that actually work.
Fanny Kaplan was a Ukrainian born Jew.
Yet another story about this - https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1616859756387237888?s=61&t=6pOse2_6KULSvy7bJhMQTw - this time involving the BBC's Chair.
Simon Case too is a disgrace and should be sacked.
As for Zahawi - words fail me.
The Tories need to go.
(The game is being played in Tucson, in the southeast corner state. The tribe's very extensive lands are to the west of Tucson. Since their lands border Mexico, the tribe has many problems with illegal border crossings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohono_Oʼodham_Nation )
It does seem that a large part of both NATO and Russian Tanks and other Vehicles are non functional. Military equipment takes a lot of maintenence, and that is an easy source of economies, as indeed it is with capital equipment in the NHS and other public services.
As DK Brown said of the Victoria-Camperdown collision, I’m glad I don’t have to come up with a rational explanation.
Another subject (like so many others) on which I don't have a strong view. I suppose it depends on your perspective - from a personal perspective, the 2000s were better than the 2010s but that won't be true for everyone.
There's absolutely no doubt in material terms we are advancing. That doesn't mean everyone is doing well and relative poverty in this country remains a matter of concern and while that's not an argument for managed equality per se it's an argument for concentrating effort on improving the lot of the poorest whether through education or more direct help.
There's perhaps a deeper, more spiritual if you like, malaise currently and for many the pandemic, whether you endured it or not, was a profoundly unsettling experience though there have been those who have seen it as a reason for a life change and that's fine.
Some claimed the post-pandemic 2020s would be analogous to the 1920s as people sought entertainment and hedonism as a way of perhaps forgetting what had gone before. I'm not so sure this time.
I am sure human ingenuity will prevail and problems which seem intractable now can and will be resolved in time - that's not to say there will be some darker days ahead in the short term but overall I'm hopeful. I'm also convinced once we solve one set of problems new challenges will emerge.
The Roman Road runs straight and bare
As the pale parting-line in hair
Across the heath. And thoughtful men
Contrast its days of Now and Then,
And delve, and measure, and compare;
Visioning on the vacant air
Helmed legionaries, who proudly rear
The Eagle, as they pace again
The Roman Road.
But no tall brass-helmed legionnaire
Haunts it for me. Uprises there
A mother's form upon my ken,
Guiding my infant steps, as when
We walked that ancient thoroughfare,
The Roman Road.
Dark Age Ireland was a cruel and war-torn place, yet its monasteries had standards of scholarship similar to Constantinople.
https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1616792754088214529
-There's a reason tankers are called "DATs" (dumb-ass-tankers). It's because they break things in their tanks & then rely on maintainers/master gunners/loggies to fix it.
-Older tanks break more often (the M1 was fielded in the 1980's)
8/
-Having fired T-72s, Chieftains, Challengers, Leo IIs & Abrams, the M1 requires the most turret training.
-Same true for the engine. The pack "blows" when drivers aren't trained. A FUPP (the combined engine/trans) is expensive (about $1.5 million) & then must be replaced. 9/
…
-"if the Iraqi's, Saudi's, Egypt troops can use the M1, the UKR will have no issues."
Iraqis paid billions for M1s w/ a permanent GD maintenance contract & a 5-year training period.
Saudis bought M1A2s w/ a 7 year training program, with maintenance contract still in place.15/…
Read the whole thing if you’re interested in the debate about the practicality of Leopards vs the M1 Abrams.
There was a mid-western city in the US that used to get practised bombed by SAC whenever Le May felt like it. Since it was all radar offset bombing, they never knew…
The Iraqis managed to lose a number of M1s - took them a fair while to get up to a certain level of competence.
https://twitter.com/GLandsbergis/status/1616699923994660865
https://twitter.com/edgarsrinkevics/status/1616699708969287680
Call for inquiry after Observer investigation uncovers scale of trafficking by criminal gangs
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/21/revealed-scores-of-child-asylum-seekers-kidnapped-from-home-office-hotel
Don't let the perfect kill the good. Every country who wants peace in Europe should send Ukraine as much armour (of all types) as they can.
So, yes, it's frustrating, but I reckon they'll get to the right place eventually.
Mindboggling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk_(Ukraine–Central_Powers)
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1616160399010811904?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
We recognise that equipping Ukraine to push Russia out of its territory is as important as equipping them to defend what they already have. Together we will continue supporting Ukraine to move from resisting to expelling Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. …
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-the-tallinn-pledge
Nadhim Zahawi ditched from honours list.
He was due to get a k… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616906774543491072
It’s certainly the case that the EU bogeyman was blamed for a lot of stuff. It would have been best kept that way. The SNP have the ‘English’ and ‘Westminster’ in that very same role. Some might reflect on what happens when the troublesome fox is troubling no more.
And now some are casting Brexit in the bogeyman role…
All three have a germ of truth buried somewhere. There were some issues with our EU membership (nothing that couldn’t have been resolved, mind). There are issues for Scotland with the current settlement, but the SNP cannot fairly blame Westminster for everything. And Brexit isn’t the sole reason for the UKs current struggles, but it’s certainly part of it.
The BBC story is astonishing and on the face if it a conflict of interest for both parties .
"Germany has insisted that it is not blocking the delivery of German-made Leopard tanks, which other countries want to send."
"German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said opinions remained divided over supplying Leopards, and he denied that Berlin was blocking such a move."
"Mr Pistorius said Berlin was prepared to move quickly if there was consensus among allies, though he could not say when a decision on the tanks might be made."
This seems to imply that it is not Germany that is blocking the deployment of the Leopard tanks, but somebody else. It would suggest that NATO as a whole is reluctant to deploy the tanks, for whatever reason.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1616805442600030210
(Too soon?)
Either you accepted our membership of a flawed institution which was incapable of meaningful reform and destined for something even most Remainers didn't want or you accepted we had to leave. Those were the choices. Nothing else was on the table.
If benefits were made contributory then new arrivals couldn’t be accused of coming to the U.K. for benefits, as they often were. But we didn’t do that, and so resentment built up and the idea that freedom of movement = free council houses for Bulgarians on arrival.
And thus Brexit.
The good thing is 63% of the public do not as per tonight's Independent
https://twitter.com/TmorrowsPapers/status/1616904320707973122?t=YfBlz3T1apsR6MsLa5xxvQ&s=19
Yes, the EU is flawed, but its purpose is both noble and in our own self interest, and as it happens it gave me the only votes of my lifetime in any national election that actually counted for anything.
Only 24% of people want him back, so actually lower than some Tory VI scores.