Sean's phoning it in. He needs his old mucker Leon to post here first in order to test and polish his arguments. DEI in Hollywood has meant fewer WM scriptwriters, which has led to a decline in television and an increase in podcasts. Even if all of those things are true, they are not obviously related. Which podcasters are Hollywood writers manqué? Marina Hyde of TRiE perhaps but she's not a chap. And television is being overturned by streamers among other trends, and so is the Hollywood film industry. It's half an idea he had reading his book in an airport lounge, and not developed.
The biggest problem is the bizarre and childish script writing in everything - and lunatic directors producing drek at the behest of the studios.
Umpteen variations on sci-fi comics on film, the streamers paying through the nose for film and programme makers, the decline of advertising as audiences are fragmented. And so on. Oh, and not hiring enough White male scriptwriters might or might not be part of it.
Fortunately, we appear to have hit peak MCU.
M She U.
Eh?
The sort of people who like Andrew Tate have long complained that the MCU is too woke because, for example, they've had some female lead characters. They have summarised their complaint by referring to the MCU as the "M She U".
I'm no fan of Tate, but the final Star Wars sequel (released 2019) was utter trash. Unwatchable! It's two immediate predecessors weren't much better!
They were, indeed, terrible. But that's Star Wars, not the MCU...???
Similar thing, a franchise going downhill.
Starwars is dead. Thank Kathleen Kennedy for that. Thankfully she’s now put out to pasture to destroy what she touches next after destroying Starwars, Indiana Jones and um….Willow.
"Star Wars" is badly wounded, but "Andor" was fantastic.
It was…agreed. Thoughtful, well paced not relying on fan bait…complex characters with equally complex motivations and character arcs. It is a grown up production, challenging its audience in an intellectual way and not relying on bullshit modern day messaging “because we can”. It has been almost universally well received, but after the shitshow of the later Mandalorian series and the weird Boba Fett thing, the Obi Wan clusterfuck, and god forbid Ashoka - the audience has left - gone. No one gives a shit anymore - especially the loyal fan base that kept Starwars alive with fan fiction, and obsessive loyalty during the quieter years.
Shit on your audience and they’ll shit on you.
I confess, I liked Andor Season 1, yet to see Season 2, though!
Leftwing militants claim responsibility for arson attack on Berlin power grid
Protest over climate crisis and AI has cut power to tens of thousands of homes which may take days to fully restore
German leftwing militants protesting over the climate crisis and AI have claimed responsibility for an arson attack that cut power to tens of thousands of households in Berlin.
How to make friends and influence people, cut of their power to a f##k load of people in the middle of sodding winter. That's not compaigning that is terrorism.
I reckon It will get worse.
The number of people on the doorstep I hear saying things like, “there are too many people”, is scary.
There are too many people. In the UK and globally.
The UK government can do something about the former. A lab in China tried a drastic approach to dealing with the latter.
Yawn,
Given advance is energy, the world can comfortably support 40 billion people.
But given falling birth rates everywhere, that isn't going to happen. Total world births will peak in my lifetime.
40 billion? You mean FIVE times as many as now?? I'd like to have some of what you're smoking!
Yes, why not?
Five time isn't very much, compared to the eight times growth in world population when Malthus wrote his original bullshit.
https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828 As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.
While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment. With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
Sean's phoning it in. He needs his old mucker Leon to post here first in order to test and polish his arguments. DEI in Hollywood has meant fewer WM scriptwriters, which has led to a decline in television and an increase in podcasts. Even if all of those things are true, they are not obviously related. Which podcasters are Hollywood writers manqué? Marina Hyde of TRiE perhaps but she's not a chap. And television is being overturned by streamers among other trends, and so is the Hollywood film industry. It's half an idea he had reading his book in an airport lounge, and not developed.
The biggest problem is the bizarre and childish script writing in everything - and lunatic directors producing drek at the behest of the studios.
Umpteen variations on sci-fi comics on film, the streamers paying through the nose for film and programme makers, the decline of advertising as audiences are fragmented. And so on. Oh, and not hiring enough White male scriptwriters might or might not be part of it.
Fortunately, we appear to have hit peak MCU.
Possibly (well, probably) but the Infinity Saga was 23 films from Iron Man (2008) to Avengers:Endgame (2019)/SpiderMan: Far From Home (same year), made some kind of internal sense, and grossed over $22 billion worldwide. It was ridiculously successful and if its successor films are not as successful or as satisfying, well that just goes to show how big an achievement it was.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Sean's phoning it in. He needs his old mucker Leon to post here first in order to test and polish his arguments. DEI in Hollywood has meant fewer WM scriptwriters, which has led to a decline in television and an increase in podcasts. Even if all of those things are true, they are not obviously related. Which podcasters are Hollywood writers manqué? Marina Hyde of TRiE perhaps but she's not a chap. And television is being overturned by streamers among other trends, and so is the Hollywood film industry. It's half an idea he had reading his book in an airport lounge, and not developed.
The biggest problem is the bizarre and childish script writing in everything - and lunatic directors producing drek at the behest of the studios.
Umpteen variations on sci-fi comics on film, the streamers paying through the nose for film and programme makers, the decline of advertising as audiences are fragmented. And so on. Oh, and not hiring enough White male scriptwriters might or might not be part of it.
Fortunately, we appear to have hit peak MCU.
M She U.
Eh?
The sort of people who like Andrew Tate have long complained that the MCU is too woke because, for example, they've had some female lead characters. They have summarised their complaint by referring to the MCU as the "M She U".
I'm no fan of Tate, but the final Star Wars sequel (released 2019) was utter trash. Unwatchable! It's two immediate predecessors weren't much better!
They were, indeed, terrible. But that's Star Wars, not the MCU...???
Similar thing, a franchise going downhill.
Starwars is dead. Thank Kathleen Kennedy for that. Thankfully she’s now put out to pasture to destroy what she touches next after destroying Starwars, Indiana Jones and um….Willow.
"Star Wars" is badly wounded, but "Andor" was fantastic.
It was…agreed. Thoughtful, well paced not relying on fan bait…complex characters with equally complex motivations and character arcs. It is a grown up production, challenging its audience in an intellectual way and not relying on bullshit modern day messaging “because we can”. It has been almost universally well received, but after the shitshow of the later Mandalorian series and the weird Boba Fett thing, the Obi Wan clusterfuck, and god forbid Ashoka - the audience has left - gone. No one gives a shit anymore - especially the loyal fan base that kept Starwars alive with fan fiction, and obsessive loyalty during the quieter years.
Shit on your audience and they’ll shit on you.
I confess, I liked Andor Season 1, yet to see Season 2, though!
Picard, seasons 1 and 2 were flushable turds. Hamstrung by fiorcing upon us the idea Picard was a washed up old fool who should just listen to the young, enabled woman who bested him at every turn.
Season 3 when they realised people wanted a proper TNG with characters they knew, loved and with a realistic interpretation of adults in adult situations popped. No millennial quip lines, or a script written by a three year old. It was wonderful, grown up fare where character’s decisions made sense, were consistent. And within lore understandable.
If you like Star Trek TNG is the most wonderful send off and culmination. No retcon. No destruction of a character to allow “modern” alternatives. Good old fashioned fun. And people loved it.
My first London bedsit, when I started work in a decent job, cost £42 a month in NW6, which AI tells me would now equate to £175. Can you get a bedsit in a reasonable part of London nowadays for £175 per month? I think not!
Or was that per week? I can’t now really remember. Perhaps £175 per week nowadays isn’t completely out of the range
My grotty one bedroom bedsit in Slough cost £5 a week in October 1965. My first job with ICI Paints after leaving University had a gross salary of less than £20 per week. It's all relative.
Some years later i shot a 48 sheet poster for ICI Paints of a can of tartan paint with the headline
'WHEN IT HAPPENS WE'II BE THERE FIRST'.
After I'd shot it ICI got cold feet in case they weren't so they wanted it changed to
'IF IT HAPPENS WE'LL BE THERE'
which the agency told them lost most of its impact but ICI insisted
Could have been me. I was in marketing. Foote Cone and Belding. Really good times!! Also Alan Parker and CDP.
Yes I think it could well have been FCB. I did quite a bit for them. CDP later but I didn't do any stills for them. Yes they were good times. I came across this recently which was almost certainly CDP and ironically shot by Alan Parker by then cutting his teeth on Directing. Typical CDP!
Great ad. I actually remember it. I met Frank Lowe a few times. Charismatic guy. Charmed our board into spending ££££. CDP employed Ridley Scott as well as Alan Parker.
https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828 As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.
While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment. With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828 As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.
While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment. With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
Sean's phoning it in. He needs his old mucker Leon to post here first in order to test and polish his arguments. DEI in Hollywood has meant fewer WM scriptwriters, which has led to a decline in television and an increase in podcasts. Even if all of those things are true, they are not obviously related. Which podcasters are Hollywood writers manqué? Marina Hyde of TRiE perhaps but she's not a chap. And television is being overturned by streamers among other trends, and so is the Hollywood film industry. It's half an idea he had reading his book in an airport lounge, and not developed.
The biggest problem is the bizarre and childish script writing in everything - and lunatic directors producing drek at the behest of the studios.
Umpteen variations on sci-fi comics on film, the streamers paying through the nose for film and programme makers, the decline of advertising as audiences are fragmented. And so on. Oh, and not hiring enough White male scriptwriters might or might not be part of it.
Fortunately, we appear to have hit peak MCU.
Possibly (well, probably) but the Infinity Saga was 23 films from Iron Man (2008) to Avengers:Endgame (2019)/SpiderMan: Far From Home (same year), made some kind of internal sense, and grossed over $22 billion worldwide. It was ridiculously successful and if its successor films are not as successful or as satisfying, well that just goes to show how big an achievement it was.
Sean's phoning it in. He needs his old mucker Leon to post here first in order to test and polish his arguments. DEI in Hollywood has meant fewer WM scriptwriters, which has led to a decline in television and an increase in podcasts. Even if all of those things are true, they are not obviously related. Which podcasters are Hollywood writers manqué? Marina Hyde of TRiE perhaps but she's not a chap. And television is being overturned by streamers among other trends, and so is the Hollywood film industry. It's half an idea he had reading his book in an airport lounge, and not developed.
The biggest problem is the bizarre and childish script writing in everything - and lunatic directors producing drek at the behest of the studios.
Umpteen variations on sci-fi comics on film, the streamers paying through the nose for film and programme makers, the decline of advertising as audiences are fragmented. And so on. Oh, and not hiring enough White male scriptwriters might or might not be part of it.
Fortunately, we appear to have hit peak MCU.
Possibly (well, probably) but the Infinity Saga was 23 films from Iron Man (2008) to Avengers:Endgame (2019)/SpiderMan: Far From Home (same year), made some kind of internal sense, and grossed over $22 billion worldwide. It was ridiculously successful and if its successor films are not as successful or as satisfying, well that just goes to show how big an achievement it was.
The new Night Manager has a scene where two moving police cars use red lights (should be only when stationary). This is even worse than when they used the English Royal Coat of Arms in a scene supposedly set in the Court of Session.
#defundtheBBC
The NIght Manager is actually very watchable and worth the license fee, even if it does need to check police car protocol
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
Leftwing militants claim responsibility for arson attack on Berlin power grid
Protest over climate crisis and AI has cut power to tens of thousands of homes which may take days to fully restore
German leftwing militants protesting over the climate crisis and AI have claimed responsibility for an arson attack that cut power to tens of thousands of households in Berlin.
How to make friends and influence people, cut of their power to a f##k load of people in the middle of sodding winter. That's not compaigning that is terrorism.
I reckon It will get worse.
The number of people on the doorstep I hear saying things like, “there are too many people”, is scary.
There are too many people. In the UK and globally.
The UK government can do something about the former. A lab in China tried a drastic approach to dealing with the latter.
UK birthrate is 1.4 and falling, there are not now too many people here, even net migration to the UK is falling over the last year
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
Sean's phoning it in. He needs his old mucker Leon to post here first in order to test and polish his arguments. DEI in Hollywood has meant fewer WM scriptwriters, which has led to a decline in television and an increase in podcasts. Even if all of those things are true, they are not obviously related. Which podcasters are Hollywood writers manqué? Marina Hyde of TRiE perhaps but she's not a chap. And television is being overturned by streamers among other trends, and so is the Hollywood film industry. It's half an idea he had reading his book in an airport lounge, and not developed.
The biggest problem is the bizarre and childish script writing in everything - and lunatic directors producing drek at the behest of the studios.
Umpteen variations on sci-fi comics on film, the streamers paying through the nose for film and programme makers, the decline of advertising as audiences are fragmented. And so on. Oh, and not hiring enough White male scriptwriters might or might not be part of it.
Fortunately, we appear to have hit peak MCU.
Possibly (well, probably) but the Infinity Saga was 23 films from Iron Man (2008) to Avengers:Endgame (2019)/SpiderMan: Far From Home (same year), made some kind of internal sense, and grossed over $22 billion worldwide. It was ridiculously successful and if its successor films are not as successful or as satisfying, well that just goes to show how big an achievement it was.
Spiderman: Far From Home did not gross $22bn. You are out by an order of magnitude.
On MCU:
Emir Han @RealEmirHan · 23h Robert Downey Jr. says he was 'a hundred percent' concerned that being in MCU for a decade would affect his acting skills in Oppenheimer
Sean's phoning it in. He needs his old mucker Leon to post here first in order to test and polish his arguments. DEI in Hollywood has meant fewer WM scriptwriters, which has led to a decline in television and an increase in podcasts. Even if all of those things are true, they are not obviously related. Which podcasters are Hollywood writers manqué? Marina Hyde of TRiE perhaps but she's not a chap. And television is being overturned by streamers among other trends, and so is the Hollywood film industry. It's half an idea he had reading his book in an airport lounge, and not developed.
The biggest problem is the bizarre and childish script writing in everything - and lunatic directors producing drek at the behest of the studios.
Umpteen variations on sci-fi comics on film, the streamers paying through the nose for film and programme makers, the decline of advertising as audiences are fragmented. And so on. Oh, and not hiring enough White male scriptwriters might or might not be part of it.
The colour of script writers has nothing to with it (although the lowering of standards due to DEI may have, but those are different points).
The issue is that the industry has been completely risk off over the last few years so they have been churning out sequels, franchises and remakes. Warner is demonstrating the willingness to take more risk recently (eg some of Jen Garner’s projects) which is a great albeit early sign.
Now we just need SAG to get their head out of their arse and not go on strike…
The new Night Manager has a scene where two moving police cars use red lights (should be only when stationary). This is even worse than when they used the English Royal Coat of Arms in a scene supposedly set in the Court of Session.
#defundtheBBC
The NIght Manager is actually very watchable and worth the license fee, even if it does need to check police car protocol
This was tongue in cheek. But I'm kinda serious - I remember when they described the King as wearing a Field Marshal's uniform, when it was clearly an Air Marshal.
If we're going to have a public broadcaster this kind of attention to detail is what I want from it.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Bollocks. Trump threatens Greenland because he believes Europe is timid and will do nothing to stop him taking it.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
In what sense? Any invasion of another nation without UN authorisation under the charter is by definition a breach of international law.
The UN is useful as a talking shop for the nations of the world and does some good work with UNICEF and on health and development etc but at the end of the day the biggest powers of the world will largely run the world. The UN Security Council vetoes at least ensure the UN can't back an action unless all the biggest powers agree
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Bollocks. Trump threatens Greenland because he believes Europe is timid and will do nothing to stop him taking it.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
"Sir Keir Starmer has said the UK should move towards closer alignment with EU markets "if it's in our national interest". The prime minister told the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg it would be "better looking to the single market rather than the customs union for our further alignment", in order to protect trade deals with India and the US.
But he ruled out revisiting manifesto promises not to rejoin the EU single market or customs union, or to end freedom of movement."
Starmer understands the customs union stuff is silly.
Customs Union is only silly relative to full membership. Estimates are that in its own it increases GDP by 0.5%, which is nothing remarkable but still more than the combined post Brexit trade deals. And the EU does trade deals as well that the UK would probably be part of in a customs union.
I do think if Starmer talks about a closer relationship with the EU, as most people want, he needs to spell out what this means. Otherwise it's just words.
A lot of ignorance there I'm afraid.
Two basic facts.
1. We cannot rejoin the Customs Union. To do so woukd require the EU making changes to the main treaties that govern the existence of the EU and for a huge number of reasons that just isn't happening.
2. Any ad hoc customs union a la Turkey would not give us access to any FTAs that the EU has or will have with third parties. This is because any existing FTAs would have to be renegotiated between the EU and the third parties to include the UK and again that isn't going to happen. The result is that any country with an FTA with the EU would have full access to the UK market but we would have no reciprocal access.
So a CU would be far worse for UK trade than the existing situation.
If you are going to bandy accusations of ignorance, it helps if you get the facts straight yourself. The EU doesn't have to change its internal treaties to agree a customs union with the UK. Whether it chooses to do so on items acceptable to the UK is another matter, but if that's we want we need to ask.
On your second point the EU doesn't renegotiate its FTAs. All it cares about is that the UK doesn't charge lower import tariffs than what it applies itself. The UK then needs to reconfirm agreements with third countries exactly as it did after Brexit
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
In what sense? Any invasion of another nation without UN authorisation under the charter is by definition a breach of international law.
The UN is useful as a talking shop for the nations of the world and does some good work with UNICEF and on health and development etc but at the end of the day the biggest powers of the world will largely run the world. The UN Security Council vetoes at least ensure the UN can't back an action unless all the biggest powers agree
Yes.
And typically the West sought cover from international law. With notable exceptions that I outlined last night.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
In what sense? Any invasion of another nation without UN authorisation under the charter is by definition a breach of international law.
The UN is useful as a talking shop for the nations of the world and does some good work with UNICEF and on health and development etc but at the end of the day the biggest powers of the world will largely run the world. The UN Security Council vetoes at least ensure the UN can't back an action unless all the biggest powers agree
Yes.
And typically the West sought cover from international law. With notable exceptions that I outlined last night.
It worked pretty well, and now it doesn’t.
If an invasion of another nation has no UN approval it is a breach of international law, there has never been any cover for it otherwise
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
In what sense? Any invasion of another nation without UN authorisation under the charter is by definition a breach of international law.
The UN is useful as a talking shop for the nations of the world and does some good work with UNICEF and on health and development etc but at the end of the day the biggest powers of the world will largely run the world. The UN Security Council vetoes at least ensure the UN can't back an action unless all the biggest powers agree
Yes.
And typically the West sought cover from international law. With notable exceptions that I outlined last night.
It worked pretty well, and now it doesn’t.
If an invasion of another nation has no UN approval it is a breach of international law, there has never been any cover for it otherwise
International law is meaningless without the might to enforce it by military means
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
In what sense? Any invasion of another nation without UN authorisation under the charter is by definition a breach of international law.
The UN is useful as a talking shop for the nations of the world and does some good work with UNICEF and on health and development etc but at the end of the day the biggest powers of the world will largely run the world. The UN Security Council vetoes at least ensure the UN can't back an action unless all the biggest powers agree
Yes.
And typically the West sought cover from international law. With notable exceptions that I outlined last night.
It worked pretty well, and now it doesn’t.
If an invasion of another nation has no UN approval it is a breach of international law, there has never been any cover for it otherwise
Strictly speaking, you can also do so as an act of self-defence.
Anyway you seem to be arguing on your own. I don’t really get the point of your comments.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
We will see. The alternative to a rules based international order will not be a pretty one.
Nations will still need both to trade and make alliances. Doing either without mutually agreed rules will not be easy, if it's even possible.
But you're quite right in thinking that if the US decides to ignore all such rules - which under Trump certainly seems to be the case - then new structures will be needed.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
There's a short term vs long term modality here: it's possible that obeying international law is short term disadvantageous and long term advantageous. It's pretty to think so. But what if it's disadvantageous long term too? What if we're cleaving to a fantasy which belongs to the twentieth century?
Not oniy in human rights terms, but in terms of free trade too.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Bollocks. Trump threatens Greenland because he believes Europe is timid and will do nothing to stop him taking it.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
It is worth considering what would happen if Danish troops were to fire on American ones, killing them.
Obviously Denmark / EU is not in a position to defend Greenland but it would have a choice about whether to simply surrender outright or not.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
In what sense? Any invasion of another nation without UN authorisation under the charter is by definition a breach of international law.
The UN is useful as a talking shop for the nations of the world and does some good work with UNICEF and on health and development etc but at the end of the day the biggest powers of the world will largely run the world. The UN Security Council vetoes at least ensure the UN can't back an action unless all the biggest powers agree
Yes.
And typically the West sought cover from international law. With notable exceptions that I outlined last night.
It worked pretty well, and now it doesn’t.
If an invasion of another nation has no UN approval it is a breach of international law, there has never been any cover for it otherwise
Strictly speaking, you can also do so as an act of self-defence.
Anyway you seem to be arguing on your own. I don’t really get the point of your comments.
The invasion of Afghanistan post 9/11 was effectively authorised by UN Resolution 1368
The list of those dead at Crans-Montana is incredibly covering. Most were under 20. The youngest two were just 14.
The owners look like they are going to have the book thrown at them; good thing too.
Worth pointing out that everyone being of legal age might not have prevented any deaths. Enforcement re fire safety first, enforcement re age of entry distant second, I would have thought.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Bollocks. Trump threatens Greenland because he believes Europe is timid and will do nothing to stop him taking it.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
Sean's phoning it in. He needs his old mucker Leon to post here first in order to test and polish his arguments. DEI in Hollywood has meant fewer WM scriptwriters, which has led to a decline in television and an increase in podcasts. Even if all of those things are true, they are not obviously related. Which podcasters are Hollywood writers manqué? Marina Hyde of TRiE perhaps but she's not a chap. And television is being overturned by streamers among other trends, and so is the Hollywood film industry. It's half an idea he had reading his book in an airport lounge, and not developed.
The biggest problem is the bizarre and childish script writing in everything - and lunatic directors producing drek at the behest of the studios.
Umpteen variations on sci-fi comics on film, the streamers paying through the nose for film and programme makers, the decline of advertising as audiences are fragmented. And so on. Oh, and not hiring enough White male scriptwriters might or might not be part of it.
Fortunately, we appear to have hit peak MCU.
Possibly (well, probably) but the Infinity Saga was 23 films from Iron Man (2008) to Avengers:Endgame (2019)/SpiderMan: Far From Home (same year), made some kind of internal sense, and grossed over $22 billion worldwide. It was ridiculously successful and if its successor films are not as successful or as satisfying, well that just goes to show how big an achievement it was.
Spiderman: Far From Home did not gross $22bn. You are out by an order of magnitude.
On MCU:
Emir Han @RealEmirHan · 23h Robert Downey Jr. says he was 'a hundred percent' concerned that being in MCU for a decade would affect his acting skills in Oppenheimer
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Bollocks. Trump threatens Greenland because he believes Europe is timid and will do nothing to stop him taking it.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
It is worth considering what would happen if Danish troops were to fire on American ones, killing them.
Obviously Denmark / EU is not in a position to defend Greenland but it would have a choice about whether to simply surrender outright or not.
I suspect they would simply evacuate the population.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
We will see. The alternative to a rules based international order will not be a pretty one.
Nations will still need both to trade and make alliances. Doing either without mutually agreed rules will not be easy, if it's even possible.
But you're quite right in thinking that if the US decides to ignore all such rules - which under Trump certainly seems to be the case - then new structures will be needed.
Why are new structures needed? Or rather, what is the point of new structures if the big powers (US, China, Russia, India) disregard them entirely?
As Brexit was for the EU, I think the rest of the 20s will be a crash course in some of these rules underpinning the global diplomatic, trading, and monetary order.
COTTON: If they don't want to follow in Maduro's footsteps, they need to start meeting our demands. And it's always an option for our military to protect American citizens and interests
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
In what sense? Any invasion of another nation without UN authorisation under the charter is by definition a breach of international law.
The UN is useful as a talking shop for the nations of the world and does some good work with UNICEF and on health and development etc but at the end of the day the biggest powers of the world will largely run the world. The UN Security Council vetoes at least ensure the UN can't back an action unless all the biggest powers agree
Yes.
And typically the West sought cover from international law. With notable exceptions that I outlined last night.
It worked pretty well, and now it doesn’t.
If an invasion of another nation has no UN approval it is a breach of international law, there has never been any cover for it otherwise
International law is meaningless without the might to enforce it by military means
Well exactly, so since WW2 international law has always depended on the US and Russian and Chinese leaderships in particular being willing to respect it above all. Otherwise it can be enforced against smaller and weaker nations with UN authorisation eg Iraq in 1990 after it invaded Kuwait but not the big boys
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Bollocks. Trump threatens Greenland because he believes Europe is timid and will do nothing to stop him taking it.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
Not only that, but there would be plenty in the EU, UK and on here who'd think it was a good idea.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
That's a load of nonsense. A smaller proportion of UK GDP goes on welfare and healthcare than the US.
How does one go about a community note?
The only way that can be true is if a small percentage of people in the US spend an enormous amount of their own private money on their own healthcare.
Sean's phoning it in. He needs his old mucker Leon to post here first in order to test and polish his arguments. DEI in Hollywood has meant fewer WM scriptwriters, which has led to a decline in television and an increase in podcasts. Even if all of those things are true, they are not obviously related. Which podcasters are Hollywood writers manqué? Marina Hyde of TRiE perhaps but she's not a chap. And television is being overturned by streamers among other trends, and so is the Hollywood film industry. It's half an idea he had reading his book in an airport lounge, and not developed.
The biggest problem is the bizarre and childish script writing in everything - and lunatic directors producing drek at the behest of the studios.
Umpteen variations on sci-fi comics on film, the streamers paying through the nose for film and programme makers, the decline of advertising as audiences are fragmented. And so on. Oh, and not hiring enough White male scriptwriters might or might not be part of it.
Fortunately, we appear to have hit peak MCU.
Possibly (well, probably) but the Infinity Saga was 23 films from Iron Man (2008) to Avengers:Endgame (2019)/SpiderMan: Far From Home (same year), made some kind of internal sense, and grossed over $22 billion worldwide. It was ridiculously successful and if its successor films are not as successful or as satisfying, well that just goes to show how big an achievement it was.
Spiderman: Far From Home did not gross $22bn. You are out by an order of magnitude.
On MCU:
Emir Han @RealEmirHan · 23h Robert Downey Jr. says he was 'a hundred percent' concerned that being in MCU for a decade would affect his acting skills in Oppenheimer
Leftwing militants claim responsibility for arson attack on Berlin power grid
Protest over climate crisis and AI has cut power to tens of thousands of homes which may take days to fully restore
German leftwing militants protesting over the climate crisis and AI have claimed responsibility for an arson attack that cut power to tens of thousands of households in Berlin.
How to make friends and influence people, cut of their power to a f##k load of people in the middle of sodding winter. That's not compaigning that is terrorism.
I reckon It will get worse.
The number of people on the doorstep I hear saying things like, “there are too many people”, is scary.
There are too many people. In the UK and globally.
The UK government can do something about the former. A lab in China tried a drastic approach to dealing with the latter.
Yawn,
Given advance is energy, the world can comfortably support 40 billion people.
But given falling birth rates everywhere, that isn't going to happen. Total world births will peak in my lifetime.
40 billion? You mean FIVE times as many as now?? I'd like to have some of what you're smoking!
Yes, why not?
Five time isn't very much, compared to the eight times growth in world population when Malthus wrote his original bullshit.
Food supply? Clean water? Energy?
All of these have grown over the past two centuries by multiple orders of magnitude, if not exponentially.
So why would half an order of magnitude more be an unbeatable problem?
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
We will see. The alternative to a rules based international order will not be a pretty one.
Nations will still need both to trade and make alliances. Doing either without mutually agreed rules will not be easy, if it's even possible.
But you're quite right in thinking that if the US decides to ignore all such rules - which under Trump certainly seems to be the case - then new structures will be needed.
Why are new structures needed? Or rather, what is the point of new structures if the big powers (US, China, Russia, India) disregard them entirely?
As Brexit was for the EU, I think the rest of the 20s will be a crash course in some of these rules underpinning the global diplomatic, trading, and monetary order.
Because if you're big a big power, then you'd better become part of a group which is. If there's going to be no WTO, then you will need some sort of alternative for any group of trading nations.
Europe essentially has much of that in the form of the EU, I think ?
Sean's phoning it in. He needs his old mucker Leon to post here first in order to test and polish his arguments. DEI in Hollywood has meant fewer WM scriptwriters, which has led to a decline in television and an increase in podcasts. Even if all of those things are true, they are not obviously related. Which podcasters are Hollywood writers manqué? Marina Hyde of TRiE perhaps but she's not a chap. And television is being overturned by streamers among other trends, and so is the Hollywood film industry. It's half an idea he had reading his book in an airport lounge, and not developed.
The biggest problem is the bizarre and childish script writing in everything - and lunatic directors producing drek at the behest of the studios.
Umpteen variations on sci-fi comics on film, the streamers paying through the nose for film and programme makers, the decline of advertising as audiences are fragmented. And so on. Oh, and not hiring enough White male scriptwriters might or might not be part of it.
Fortunately, we appear to have hit peak MCU.
Possibly (well, probably) but the Infinity Saga was 23 films from Iron Man (2008) to Avengers:Endgame (2019)/SpiderMan: Far From Home (same year), made some kind of internal sense, and grossed over $22 billion worldwide. It was ridiculously successful and if its successor films are not as successful or as satisfying, well that just goes to show how big an achievement it was.
Spiderman: Far From Home did not gross $22bn. You are out by an order of magnitude.
Although I suspect you knew this and was tweaking my noggin, I was referring to the total worldwide gross of the entire saga, not the individual gross of its last entry.
Contrary to the flawed theories of Malthus, our ability to generate, extract and process resources has grown considerably faster than population growth.
Which is why living standards have rocketed, not collapsed.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Bollocks. Trump threatens Greenland because he believes Europe is timid and will do nothing to stop him taking it.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Bollocks. Trump threatens Greenland because he believes Europe is timid and will do nothing to stop him taking it.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
Not only that, but there would be plenty in the EU, UK and on here who'd think it was a good idea.
Sadly this is true. I am saddened by the number of British people whose loyalty is to Trump and would welcome an invasion of Greenland because it would own the libs. Patriotism, in the sense of patriotism to Britain, is disappearing amongst the commentariat.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Bollocks. Trump threatens Greenland because he believes Europe is timid and will do nothing to stop him taking it.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
It is worth considering what would happen if Danish troops were to fire on American ones, killing them.
Obviously Denmark / EU is not in a position to defend Greenland but it would have a choice about whether to simply surrender outright or not.
I had no idea that Greenland had so much history with the US Government :
"Since the 19th century, the United States has considered, and made, several attempts to purchase the island of Greenland from Denmark, as it did with the Danish West Indies in 1917. There were notable internal discussions within the U.S. federal government about acquiring Greenland in 1867, 1910, 1946, 1955, 2019, and 2025, and acquisition has been advocated by American secretaries of state William H. Seward and James F. Byrnes, privately by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, and publicly by President Donald Trump, among others."
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Bollocks. Trump threatens Greenland because he believes Europe is timid and will do nothing to stop him taking it.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
Not only that, but there would be plenty in the EU, UK and on here who'd think it was a good idea.
Sadly this is true. I am saddened by the number of British people whose loyalty is to Trump and would welcome an invasion of Greenland because it would own the libs. Patriotism, in the sense of patriotism to Britain, is disappearing amongst the commentariat.
I would expect more Americans would oppose a US invasion of Greenland than British people would support it 'Of 1,000 people polled from Jan. 7 to Jan. 11, 53% didn't support acquiring Greenland, 29% thought it was a good idea but didn't think it could realistically happen, and just 11% said the Trump administration should do everything it can to make it a reality.
Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of Democrats – 86% – were opposed to taking Greenland. But among Republicans, just 23% said Trump should pursue the policy, while around half – 48% – said it was good but unrealistic and 21% said it was not a good plan.' https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2025/01/15/trump-greenland-poll/77668938007/
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I have been making these arguments for many years now.
Did we ever have an international law order?
Or was it only ever a myth we told ourselves as it was comforting and something we hoped would exist even though it did not?
Name any US President, ever, who could not be accused of breaking international law.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I have been making these arguments for many years now.
Did we ever have an international law order?
Or was it only ever a myth we told ourselves as it was comforting and something we hoped would exist even though it did not?
Name any US President, ever, who could not be accused of breaking international law.
Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Dwight Eisenhower, FDR, Biden and Obama
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
That's a load of nonsense. A smaller proportion of UK GDP goes on welfare and healthcare than the US.
How does one go about a community note?
The only way that can be true is if a small percentage of people in the US spend an enormous amount of their own private money on their own healthcare.
The US healthcare system is so broken, dodgy and inefficient that the US spends more public money on healthcare than the UK does.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
We will see. The alternative to a rules based international order will not be a pretty one.
Nations will still need both to trade and make alliances. Doing either without mutually agreed rules will not be easy, if it's even possible.
But you're quite right in thinking that if the US decides to ignore all such rules - which under Trump certainly seems to be the case - then new structures will be needed.
The alternative to utopia will not be a pretty one.
A rules based international order is a utopian fantasy. It has never existed and never will.
Dealing with realpolitik reality is more effective than utopian fantasies.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
We shall fight on the universal credit, we shall fight on the housing benefit and council tax support, we shall fight with growing confidence and strength on the two child benefit cap, we shall defend out welfare whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the personal independence payment, we shall fight on the pension credit, we shall fight on the winter fuel allowance and on the cold weather payment, we shall fight on the incapacity benefit, we shall never surrender our triple lock pensions.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I have been making these arguments for many years now.
Did we ever have an international law order?
Or was it only ever a myth we told ourselves as it was comforting and something we hoped would exist even though it did not?
Name any US President, ever, who could not be accused of breaking international law.
Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Dwight Eisenhower, FDR, Biden and Obama
Welker: Susie Wiles said an attack on Venezuela’s mainland would require congressional approval
Rubio: This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn't require congressional approval. This was not an invasion or an extended military action…We didn't even know if the mission was going to happen. How can you notify something that you're not sure if it can happen. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2007836761435865330
The new uncertainty principal of legal justification.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I have been making these arguments for many years now.
Did we ever have an international law order?
Or was it only ever a myth we told ourselves as it was comforting and something we hoped would exist even though it did not?
Name any US President, ever, who could not be accused of breaking international law.
Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Dwight Eisenhower, FDR, Biden and Obama
Iranian Coup for Eisenhower?
Possibly, though there was no invasion of Iran by US forces nor capture of Mossadegh by US forces even though the CIA and MI6 helped orchestrate the coup
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I have been making these arguments for many years now.
Did we ever have an international law order?
Or was it only ever a myth we told ourselves as it was comforting and something we hoped would exist even though it did not?
Name any US President, ever, who could not be accused of breaking international law.
Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Dwight Eisenhower, FDR, Biden and Obama
The threshold was accused, and all of those have been accused of breaking international law.
Carter - over Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan and more.
Ford - use of force in Cambodian waters, violating the UN Charter.
Dwight Eisenhower - Iran and Guatemala.
FDR - Prior to the commencement of post-war standards. Multiple actions that would violate them today, but were not the law then. Accusations even over then-standards and Nuremberg-standards have been made though over firebombing in the war, forced population transfers. Criticisms have been levied against delays to preventing transfers to Auschwitz.
Obama - Drone strikes and Lybia.
Biden - Accused over support for Israel and drone strikes too.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
That's a load of nonsense. A smaller proportion of UK GDP goes on welfare and healthcare than the US.
How does one go about a community note?
The only way that can be true is if a small percentage of people in the US spend an enormous amount of their own private money on their own healthcare.
American health insurance plans typically have large deductables and co-pays. So for an Obamacare silver plan typically you have to pay the first $3000 per year entirely yourself and then a percentage of the fees after that. A lot of people pay entirely out of pocket because they're not covered for the treatment for various reasons.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Bollocks. Trump threatens Greenland because he believes Europe is timid and will do nothing to stop him taking it.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
@williamglenn , @viewcode here. Thank you for that: I didn't know there was a word ("legalism") for the phenomenon where MPs abdicate their decisions to law bodies. I've been reading Sumption recently and he is scathing about it. Do you have any other examples?
The alternative to reliance on law is, of course, pure force. We are not well prepared for that world.
It's striking how in US discussions the legality of this action is framed almost entirely in terms of domestic law & Congressional authority, as if it's self-evident that if it's legal at home then it must be legal abroad. Implication is any DoJ indictment is license to use force. https://x.com/shashj/status/2007755594044768381
No, I meant the phenomenon where political decisions are subcontracted to law. The choice whether to ally with the US is a political choice regardless of the legality of its actions. And, as your quote points out, Trump has replaced the authorisation of war by Congress (an elected political forum) with the Attorney-General (an appointed law officer), and Congress is entirely comfortable with this emasculation.
That's a new definition for an old word afaik.
Normally "legalism" is an excessive attachment to the dot and tittle of the rules or laws - so a policeman in the USA pulling you up for jaywalking for not using a crosswalk to cross a road when the nearest one is 2 miles away.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
Bollocks. Trump threatens Greenland because he believes Europe is timid and will do nothing to stop him taking it.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
Not only that, but there would be plenty in the EU, UK and on here who'd think it was a good idea.
Some on here thought Russia's "SMO" was a good idea...
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
That's a load of nonsense. A smaller proportion of UK GDP goes on welfare and healthcare than the US.
How does one go about a community note?
The only way that can be true is if a small percentage of people in the US spend an enormous amount of their own private money on their own healthcare.
American health insurance plans typically have large deductables and co-pays. So for an Obamacare silver plan typically you have to pay the first $3000 per year entirely yourself and then a percentage of the fees after that. A lot of people pay entirely out of pocket because they're not covered for the treatment for various reasons.
Estimates for OECD members based on SOCX data.
There are arguments around categories, but it remains that the USA is monstrously inefficient on outcome per unit of expenditure.
I expect parts of the US media will be covering this soon, given that Trump just transferred a big chunk of the public expenditure to the US version of "strivers" (which I think is income of $40k to $80k).
Welker: Susie Wiles said an attack on Venezuela’s mainland would require congressional approval
Rubio: This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn't require congressional approval. This was not an invasion or an extended military action…We didn't even know if the mission was going to happen. How can you notify something that you're not sure if it can happen. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2007836761435865330
The new uncertainty principal of legal justification.
America hasn't gone to war with Venezuela, it has merely abducted its leader. This is of course a casus belli and Venezuela should declare war on the US lol.
At the time the Constitution was written, going to war would, by default, require a declaration. Also timescales were longer and communications were poorer. You could, for example, discuss the invasion of Mexico in Congress and still be over the border before the Mexicans found out. I don't understand how you can get the legislature to approve military action and still maintain opsec.
This while I believe military action should continue to be treated as a prerogative power that does not need to be approved in Parliament
Welker: Susie Wiles said an attack on Venezuela’s mainland would require congressional approval
Rubio: This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn't require congressional approval. This was not an invasion or an extended military action…We didn't even know if the mission was going to happen. How can you notify something that you're not sure if it can happen. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2007836761435865330
The new uncertainty principal of legal justification.
America hasn't gone to war with Venezuela, it has merely abducted its leader. This is of course a casus belli and Venezuela should declare war on the US lol.
I don't think the USA would be willing to put the "manpower" at risk to do a serious nationwide ground intervention, even for Cuba (10 million people).
And European nations will not helping with this one !
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
@williamglenn , @viewcode here. Thank you for that: I didn't know there was a word ("legalism") for the phenomenon where MPs abdicate their decisions to law bodies. I've been reading Sumption recently and he is scathing about it. Do you have any other examples?
The alternative to reliance on law is, of course, pure force. We are not well prepared for that world.
It's striking how in US discussions the legality of this action is framed almost entirely in terms of domestic law & Congressional authority, as if it's self-evident that if it's legal at home then it must be legal abroad. Implication is any DoJ indictment is license to use force. https://x.com/shashj/status/2007755594044768381
No, I meant the phenomenon where political decisions are subcontracted to law. The choice whether to ally with the US is a political choice regardless of the legality of its actions. And, as your quote points out, Trump has replaced the authorisation of war by Congress (an elected political forum) with the Attorney-General (an appointed law officer), and Congress is entirely comfortable with this emasculation.
That's a new definition for an old word afaik.
Normally "legalism" is an excessive attachment to the dot and tittle of the rules or laws - so a policeman in the USA pulling you up for jaywalking for not using a crosswalk to cross a road when the nearest one is 2 miles away.
https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828 As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.
While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment. With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
That is all abaolsutely true. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, many of the experts in heavy oil production in Venezuela were driven out two decades ago by Chavez and have no got new lives other (usually much more stable) places in the world. I doubt many of them will be in any hurry to go back. Heavy oil production is uniquely expensive and technically very difficult. There will be no quick fix or ramp up.
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
@williamglenn , @viewcode here. Thank you for that: I didn't know there was a word ("legalism") for the phenomenon where MPs abdicate their decisions to law bodies. I've been reading Sumption recently and he is scathing about it. Do you have any other examples?
The alternative to reliance on law is, of course, pure force. We are not well prepared for that world.
It's striking how in US discussions the legality of this action is framed almost entirely in terms of domestic law & Congressional authority, as if it's self-evident that if it's legal at home then it must be legal abroad. Implication is any DoJ indictment is license to use force. https://x.com/shashj/status/2007755594044768381
No, I meant the phenomenon where political decisions are subcontracted to law. The choice whether to ally with the US is a political choice regardless of the legality of its actions. And, as your quote points out, Trump has replaced the authorisation of war by Congress (an elected political forum) with the Attorney-General (an appointed law officer), and Congress is entirely comfortable with this emasculation.
That's a new definition for an old word afaik.
Normally "legalism" is an excessive attachment to the dot and tittle of the rules or laws - so a policeman in the USA pulling you up for jaywalking for not using a crosswalk to cross a road when the nearest one is 2 miles away.
"Sir Keir Starmer has said the UK should move towards closer alignment with EU markets "if it's in our national interest". The prime minister told the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg it would be "better looking to the single market rather than the customs union for our further alignment", in order to protect trade deals with India and the US.
But he ruled out revisiting manifesto promises not to rejoin the EU single market or customs union, or to end freedom of movement."
Starmer understands the customs union stuff is silly.
Customs Union is only silly relative to full membership. Estimates are that in its own it increases GDP by 0.5%, which is nothing remarkable but still more than the combined post Brexit trade deals. And the EU does trade deals as well that the UK would probably be part of in a customs union.
I do think if Starmer talks about a closer relationship with the EU, as most people want, he needs to spell out what this means. Otherwise it's just words.
A lot of ignorance there I'm afraid.
Two basic facts.
1. We cannot rejoin the Customs Union. To do so woukd require the EU making changes to the main treaties that govern the existence of the EU and for a huge number of reasons that just isn't happening.
2. Any ad hoc customs union a la Turkey would not give us access to any FTAs that the EU has or will have with third parties. This is because any existing FTAs would have to be renegotiated between the EU and the third parties to include the UK and again that isn't going to happen. The result is that any country with an FTA with the EU would have full access to the UK market but we would have no reciprocal access.
So a CU would be far worse for UK trade than the existing situation.
If you are going to bandy accusations of ignorance, it helps if you get the facts straight yourself. The EU doesn't have to change its internal treaties to agree a customs union with the UK. Whether it chooses to do so on items acceptable to the UK is another matter, but if that's we want we need to ask.
On your second point the EU doesn't renegotiate its FTAs. All it cares about is that the UK doesn't charge lower import tariffs than what it applies itself. The UK then needs to reconfirm agreements with third countries exactly as it did after Brexit
LOL. I love the fact that the only way you can defend your igorance is by misquoting what I wrote.
I said 'We cannot rejoin the Customs Union'. That is exactly correct. Membership of the Customs Union requires membership of the EU. It is written into the founding treaty of the EU. The only way to change that is to rewrite the treaties.
So either you are being deliberatly dishonest or you are incapable of basic comprehension. I suspect the former. But if it is the latter I suggest you learn to read.
And as I said, why would any country bother to renegotiate a treaty with the UK when they can get free access to our markets via a UK-EU customs union without having to give us the same access in return? This is exactly the problem Turkey has and why they threatened to leave the EU-Turkey CU if the EU signed an FTA with the US.
It is not the same as when we left the EU because the third party countries could not have continued access to our markets without a reciprocal agreement with ourselves.
A good example of the paralysing effect of legalism on politics from Darren Jones: "It's not for politicians to make judgements around international law."
@williamglenn , @viewcode here. Thank you for that: I didn't know there was a word ("legalism") for the phenomenon where MPs abdicate their decisions to law bodies. I've been reading Sumption recently and he is scathing about it. Do you have any other examples?
The alternative to reliance on law is, of course, pure force. We are not well prepared for that world.
It's striking how in US discussions the legality of this action is framed almost entirely in terms of domestic law & Congressional authority, as if it's self-evident that if it's legal at home then it must be legal abroad. Implication is any DoJ indictment is license to use force. https://x.com/shashj/status/2007755594044768381
No, I meant the phenomenon where political decisions are subcontracted to law. The choice whether to ally with the US is a political choice regardless of the legality of its actions. And, as your quote points out, Trump has replaced the authorisation of war by Congress (an elected political forum) with the Attorney-General (an appointed law officer), and Congress is entirely comfortable with this emasculation.
That's a new definition for an old word afaik.
Normally "legalism" is an excessive attachment to the dot and tittle of the rules or laws - so a policeman in the USA pulling you up for jaywalking for not using a crosswalk to cross a road when the nearest one is 2 miles away.
* "Atherosclerosis" is clogging of veins by fatty build up.
According to perplexity.ai, it's called "judicial overreach", but I think that just covers one side of it, and ignores MPs resiling from it. I'll ask it again.
(Five minutes later)
Hmm. It suggests “judicialisation of politics” or “government by judges”, combined with “parliamentary abdication” or "democratic abdication" or “legislative buck‑passing".
How in the name of goodness above did we go through a whole article on 1980/90s music without me mentioning The Sisters Of Mercy? To rectify this startling omission, I gave you the greatest hits album, "A Slight Case of Overbombing"
Welker: Susie Wiles said an attack on Venezuela’s mainland would require congressional approval
Rubio: This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn't require congressional approval. This was not an invasion or an extended military action…We didn't even know if the mission was going to happen. How can you notify something that you're not sure if it can happen. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2007836761435865330
The new uncertainty principal of legal justification.
America hasn't gone to war with Venezuela, it has merely abducted its leader.
Absurd. That's a distinction without a difference.
The US invaded Venezuela with military force, killing scores of people and destroying military assets. Saying that it was a "law enforcement action" does not change what it was in law.
Welker: Susie Wiles said an attack on Venezuela’s mainland would require congressional approval
Rubio: This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn't require congressional approval. This was not an invasion or an extended military action…We didn't even know if the mission was going to happen. How can you notify something that you're not sure if it can happen. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2007836761435865330
The new uncertainty principal of legal justification.
America hasn't gone to war with Venezuela, it has merely abducted its leader.
Absurd. That's a distinction without a difference.
The US invaded Venezuela with military force, killing scores of people and destroying military assets. Saying that it was a "law enforcement action" does not change what it was in law.
It’s not “war” - certainly a causi belli but “war” has certain specific characteristics that haven’t been met. This is more of a raid than an invasion (at present)
Welker: Susie Wiles said an attack on Venezuela’s mainland would require congressional approval
Rubio: This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn't require congressional approval. This was not an invasion or an extended military action…We didn't even know if the mission was going to happen. How can you notify something that you're not sure if it can happen. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2007836761435865330
The new uncertainty principal of legal justification.
America hasn't gone to war with Venezuela, it has merely abducted its leader.
Absurd. That's a distinction without a difference.
The US invaded Venezuela with military force, killing scores of people and destroying military assets. Saying that it was a "law enforcement action" does not change what it was in law.
It’s not “war” - certainly a causi belli but “war” has certain specific characteristics that haven’t been met. This is more of a raid than an invasion (at present)
You need to read up on US law.
Rep. Ami Bera: "Congress…had a classified briefing right before the holiday break. Rubio, Hegseth, and General Caine were asked directly if this was about regime change and if we would be seeing troops on the ground. We were misled. They indicated that we would not see that." https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/2007950062232441303
Comments
Trump parades Maduro through New York with open doors in a van!
Man that is getting weird
https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/2007860765097967729
https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828
As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.
While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment.
With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_superhero_films
@awkword
Congratulations to Donald Trump for becoming the first president ever to bomb 8 countries in 1 year
https://x.com/awkword/status/2007848637217521782?s=20
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2007910951438406128
Season 3 when they realised people wanted a proper TNG with characters they knew, loved and with a realistic interpretation of adults in adult situations popped. No millennial quip lines, or a script written by a three year old. It was wonderful, grown up fare where character’s decisions made sense, were consistent. And within lore understandable.
If you like Star Trek TNG is the most wonderful send off and culmination. No retcon. No destruction of a character to allow “modern” alternatives. Good old fashioned fun. And people loved it.
Funny that.
I met Frank Lowe a few times. Charismatic guy. Charmed our board into spending ££££.
CDP employed Ridley Scott as well as Alan Parker.
I am sure I have missed one or two v good films, but generally speaking they are for people with arrested mental development.
Just saying.
I have upped my stake on Lil Marco by a few pints this evening.
https://x.com/alinejadmasih/status/2007935817449152921?s=61
That was from 40 years ago.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
That suggests there will be further quarry.
How does one go about a community note?
On MCU:
Emir Han
@RealEmirHan
·
23h
Robert Downey Jr. says he was 'a hundred percent' concerned that being in MCU for a decade would affect his acting skills in Oppenheimer
https://x.com/RealEmirHan/status/2007593017923002789
The issue is that the industry has been completely risk off over the last few years so they have been churning out sequels, franchises and remakes. Warner is demonstrating the willingness to take more risk recently (eg some of Jen Garner’s projects) which is a great albeit early sign.
Now we just need SAG to get their head out of their arse and not go on strike…
If we're going to have a public broadcaster this kind of attention to detail is what I want from it.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
And he's probably right. The EU could absolutely deploy a force to Greenland that would make Trump pull a TACO. But they won't, because they're all in denial about the US being a hostile power. Military power is not the issue. Trump can take Greenland in hours because the EU won't even try to stop him.
The UN is useful as a talking shop for the nations of the world and does some good work with UNICEF and on health and development etc but at the end of the day the biggest powers of the world will largely run the world. The UN Security Council vetoes at least ensure the UN can't back an action unless all the biggest powers agree
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/explainer-customs-unions
On your second point the EU doesn't renegotiate its FTAs. All it cares about is that the UK doesn't charge lower import tariffs than what it applies itself. The UK then needs to reconfirm agreements with third countries exactly as it did after Brexit
https://www.cer.eu/insights/labour-selling-uk-turkey
And typically the West sought cover from international law. With notable exceptions that I outlined last night.
It worked pretty well, and now it doesn’t.
Anyway you seem to be arguing on your own.
I don’t really get the point of your comments.
The alternative to a rules based international order will not be a pretty one.
Nations will still need both to trade and make alliances. Doing either without mutually agreed rules will not be easy, if it's even possible.
But you're quite right in thinking that if the US decides to ignore all such rules - which under Trump certainly seems to be the case - then new structures will be needed.
Not oniy in human rights terms, but in terms of free trade too.
I don't know either.
Obviously Denmark / EU is not in a position to defend Greenland but it would have a choice about whether to simply surrender outright or not.
I do suspect several thousand troops, air defence and artillery parked within range of Thule would be even more effective.
Or rather, what is the point of new structures if the big powers (US, China, Russia, India) disregard them entirely?
As Brexit was for the EU, I think the rest of the 20s will be a crash course in some of these rules underpinning the global diplomatic, trading, and monetary order.
BASH: And the interest is Venezuelan oil fields in this case?
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2007825483426136568
So why would half an order of magnitude more be an unbeatable problem?
If there's going to be no WTO, then you will need some sort of alternative for any group of trading nations.
Europe essentially has much of that in the form of the EU, I think ?
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2007596970656039279
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2007910921914769832
Which is why living standards have rocketed, not collapsed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland
"Since the 19th century, the United States has considered, and made, several attempts to purchase the island of Greenland from Denmark, as it did with the Danish West Indies in 1917. There were notable internal discussions within the U.S. federal government about acquiring Greenland in 1867, 1910, 1946, 1955, 2019, and 2025, and acquisition has been advocated by American secretaries of state William H. Seward and James F. Byrnes, privately by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, and publicly by President Donald Trump, among others."
it
'Of 1,000 people polled from Jan. 7 to Jan. 11, 53% didn't support acquiring Greenland, 29% thought it was a good idea but didn't think it could realistically happen, and just 11% said the Trump administration should do everything it can to make it a reality.
Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of Democrats – 86% – were opposed to taking Greenland. But among Republicans, just 23% said Trump should pursue the policy, while around half – 48% – said it was good but unrealistic and 21% said it was not a good plan.'
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2025/01/15/trump-greenland-poll/77668938007/
Did we ever have an international law order?
Or was it only ever a myth we told ourselves as it was comforting and something we hoped would exist even though it did not?
Name any US President, ever, who could not be accused of breaking international law.
With private funds spent on top.
A rules based international order is a utopian fantasy. It has never existed and never will.
Dealing with realpolitik reality is more effective than utopian fantasies.
Rubio: This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn't require congressional approval. This was not an invasion or an extended military action…We didn't even know if the mission was going to happen. How can you notify something that you're not sure if it can happen.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/2007836761435865330
The new uncertainty principal of legal justification.
Carter - over Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan and more.
Ford - use of force in Cambodian waters, violating the UN Charter.
Dwight Eisenhower - Iran and Guatemala.
FDR - Prior to the commencement of post-war standards. Multiple actions that would violate them today, but were not the law then. Accusations even over then-standards and Nuremberg-standards have been made though over firebombing in the war, forced population transfers. Criticisms have been levied against delays to preventing transfers to Auschwitz.
Obama - Drone strikes and Lybia.
Biden - Accused over support for Israel and drone strikes too.
Literally all of them have been accused.
Seems a clear expression of intent.
Normally "legalism" is an excessive attachment to the dot and tittle of the rules or laws - so a policeman in the USA pulling you up for jaywalking for not using a crosswalk to cross a road when the nearest one is 2 miles away.
There are arguments around categories, but it remains that the USA is monstrously inefficient on outcome per unit of expenditure.
I expect parts of the US media will be covering this soon, given that Trump just transferred a big chunk of the public expenditure to the US version of "strivers" (which I think is income of $40k to $80k).
At the time the Constitution was written, going to war would, by default, require a declaration. Also timescales were longer and communications were poorer. You could, for example, discuss the invasion of Mexico in Congress and still be over the border before the Mexicans found out. I don't understand how you can get the legislature to approve military action and still maintain opsec.
This while I believe military action should continue to be treated as a prerogative power that does not need to be approved in Parliament
I don't think the USA would be willing to put the "manpower" at risk to do a serious nationwide ground intervention, even for Cuba (10 million people).
And European nations will not helping with this one !
"Embolism"? "Thrombosis"? "Blatherosclerosis"?
* "Atherosclerosis" is clogging of veins by fatty build up.
I said 'We cannot rejoin the Customs Union'. That is exactly correct. Membership of the Customs Union requires membership of the EU. It is written into the founding treaty of the EU. The only way to change that is to rewrite the treaties.
So either you are being deliberatly dishonest or you are incapable of basic comprehension. I suspect the former. But if it is the latter I suggest you learn to read.
And as I said, why would any country bother to renegotiate a treaty with the UK when they can get free access to our markets via a UK-EU customs union without having to give us the same access in return? This is exactly the problem Turkey has and why they threatened to leave the EU-Turkey CU if the EU signed an FTA with the US.
It is not the same as when we left the EU because the third party countries could not have continued access to our markets without a reciprocal agreement with ourselves.
So yes, you are fucking ignorant.
(Five minutes later)
Hmm. It suggests “judicialisation of politics” or “government by judges”, combined with “parliamentary abdication” or "democratic abdication" or “legislative buck‑passing".
In that spirit, here's "I'll Be Good" by Rene & Angela, (from 1985). Genius song with an unbelievable bassline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVj1m8uy5AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvZiZljUnso&list=PLfDdnqJzu919lRGdTVr9sR6oui1966puW
The US invaded Venezuela with military force, killing scores of people and destroying military assets.
Saying that it was a "law enforcement action" does not change what it was in law.
Rep. Ami Bera: "Congress…had a classified briefing right before the holiday break. Rubio, Hegseth, and General Caine were asked directly if this was about regime change and if we would be seeing troops on the ground. We were misled. They indicated that we would not see that."
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/2007950062232441303