A shame Cameron went, I thought he was really rather good. And, @FrancisUrquhart, I thought Hague was going to be a great PM too.
Cameron went, leaving the country in an utter mess, precisely because he was not very good. Not very good at all.
I'm not a fan of Cameron at all, and I've criticised his strategy over the Brexit referendum heavily in the past - criticisms you could extend to all three referendums under his governments - and there are many more criticisms of him to make besides, but when you compare him to the PMs who have followed his ability to talk to the public, to make a political case, to lead a Cabinet of capable (if, I might argue, misguided) ministers, put him very far ahead of those that have followed.
Judged on his own measures of success - keeping things much the same, being a figurehead, doing a bit of politics etc., he was quite good, or 'rather good at it' as he revealingly put it. But he was all presentation.
A lot of being PM is precisely that - good presentation. Ideally you're the front man for a talented Cabinet that knows what it's doing policy wise, and the job of PM is to be the figure head who sells the politics to the public.
Ideally the political judgements the PM makes are largely made when they choose who to appoint to their Cabinet. The idea that the PM should be micromanaging policy across the entirety of government is a recipe for disaster, but seems to be the model that Britain is currently following.
I do have to give Cameron some credit for pushing back against that a bit.
A shame Cameron went, I thought he was really rather good. And, @FrancisUrquhart, I thought Hague was going to be a great PM too.
Cameron went, leaving the country in an utter mess, precisely because he was not very good. Not very good at all.
I'm not a fan of Cameron at all, and I've criticised his strategy over the Brexit referendum heavily in the past - criticisms you could extend to all three referendums under his governments - and there are many more criticisms of him to make besides, but when you compare him to the PMs who have followed his ability to talk to the public, to make a political case, to lead a Cabinet of capable (if, I might argue, misguided) ministers, put him very far ahead of those that have followed.
Judged on his own measures of success - keeping things much the same, being a figurehead, doing a bit of politics etc., he was quite good, or 'rather good at it' as he revealingly put it. But he was all presentation.
Which is not the worst model for a PM, being a decent frontman and political manager, so long as they can pick decent ideologues for strategic direction.
At the very least he was not at war with his own chancellor, which seems to happen a lot.
It is not the worst model when there are not serious long-term issues with the country.
Fascinating. A thing to note: The right of centre non-Tory vote is 30.1%, out of 49.5% The left of centre non- Labour vote is 28.8% (+ add a bit for PC, Jezbollah, Islamic indies) out of 47.3%+ a bit. That is, more or less identical.
Some will interpret this identity as being good for Labour - their opposition is split. Some as good for the Tories - they only have one, very fragile, other party to overcome.
On the whole I go with the second view. Labour are in bigger trouble than the Tories despite their identical situation.
Wouldn't you need to take into account the anti-Reform vote? The figures on the left and right may be close, but the left side appear to be a lot more flexible in terms of who they'll vote for at a general election.
In Caerphilly, the Tory vote folded very nicely into the Reform vote. There just weren't enough right wingers to secure victory.
Is that based on post-election research? If so do you have a source as I'd be interested to see (genuinely).
I realise that plenty of Tories have positive feelings for Reform, but I thought one of the quirkier* aspects of the anti-Reform polling was that there were plenty of Tories who would vote against Reform, and left wing voters who would vote Tory in a Reform-Tory race.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
Mmm. The history of air strikes would suggest that those alone would merely strengthen the regime.
Fascinating. A thing to note: The right of centre non-Tory vote is 30.1%, out of 49.5% The left of centre non- Labour vote is 28.8% (+ add a bit for PC, Jezbollah, Islamic indies) out of 47.3%+ a bit. That is, more or less identical.
Some will interpret this identity as being good for Labour - their opposition is split. Some as good for the Tories - they only have one, very fragile, other party to overcome.
On the whole I go with the second view. Labour are in bigger trouble than the Tories despite their identical situation.
Wouldn't you need to take into account the anti-Reform vote? The figures on the left and right may be close, but the left side appear to be a lot more flexible in terms of who they'll vote for at a general election.
Yes that is undoubtedly one of the factors in an election which, on current form, is three sorts of contest: Reform v Not Reform; Labour government v Kick The Rascals Out and Left of Centre v Right of Centre.
No, I have no idea either, except that the Tories by 2029 will be doing better than they are now.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
It's not exactly ideal geography for an invasion. 700km from Bushehr to Tehran crossing several mountain ranges on the way.
It will be funny, for low values of funny, if Trump does it because Starmer will feel he has to join in.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
Mmm. The history of air strikes would suggest that those alone would merely strengthen the regime.
There's nothing like an external enemy to get the people behind the government.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
Mmm. The history of air strikes would suggest that those alone would merely strengthen the regime.
There’s not exactly much of the element of surprise about this one either.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
Mmm. The history of air strikes would suggest that those alone would merely strengthen the regime.
There's nothing like an external enemy to get the people behind the government.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
It's not exactly ideal geography for an invasion. 700km from Bushehr to Tehran crossing several mountain ranges on the way.
It will be funny, for low values of funny, if Trump does it because Starmer will feel he has to join in.
It was a cakewalk for the Brits and Russkies in 1941.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
It's not exactly ideal geography for an invasion. 700km from Bushehr to Tehran crossing several mountain ranges on the way.
It will be funny, for low values of funny, if Trump does it because Starmer will feel he has to join in.
It was a cakewalk for the Brits and Russkies in 1941.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
Trump and his administration have come to believe that they can get outcomes with limited strikes, which is (in their minds) how they’re better than previous administrations that got mired in extensive military interventions. At least, that’s my guess as to their thinking. I don’t believe there’s any appetite, even among MAGA, for an invasion, of anywhere.
So, that means we’re just talking air strikes or daring raids to arrest people. It will be way harder to repeat the arrest of Maduro in Iran: that’s not going to happen. So, what’s left? Something that’s more symbolic? That could give the protesters the moral support they need. That could turn the population against the protesters as it fits the regime’s narrative that they’re all US-backed saboteurs. I’ve no idea.
Trump is still high on the success of Operation Southern Spear, going around saying he’s the interim President of Venezuela. At some point, the US electorate and media may pay more attention to how he isn’t and that the Chavistas are still more or less doing all the same things they did before. If we’re lucky, the Iranian regime may actually fall, but there’s a good chance that the US bomb and the regime stay in place. What does Trump do then? Pick on Greenland?
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
It's not exactly ideal geography for an invasion. 700km from Bushehr to Tehran crossing several mountain ranges on the way.
It will be funny, for low values of funny, if Trump does it because Starmer will feel he has to join in.
It was a cakewalk for the Brits and Russkies in 1941.
The Brits too grand to oppose and the Russians too ghastly not to run away from. I should write bestselling history books..
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
I'm not sure what kind of "military action" the Americans will take in Iran and I'm also far from clear how effective it will be in crippling or breaking the regime which seems, as far as I can tell, to have weathered the latest storm of protest.
I presume there will be an attempt to paralyse the security forces by precision strikes and the political leadership likewise but that does not in and of itself a revolution make if those opposed can no longer muster the energy so to do.
Without some group or grouping able to tke advantage, the regime will regain its strength and control.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
It's not exactly ideal geography for an invasion. 700km from Bushehr to Tehran crossing several mountain ranges on the way.
It will be funny, for low values of funny, if Trump does it because Starmer will feel he has to join in.
It was a cakewalk for the Brits and Russkies in 1941.
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
Put British, French, German, Italian and Canadian troops in Greenland pronto.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
Trump and his administration have come to believe that they can get outcomes with limited strikes, which is (in their minds) how they’re better than previous administrations that got mired in extensive military interventions. At least, that’s my guess as to their thinking. I don’t believe there’s any appetite, even among MAGA, for an invasion, of anywhere.
So, that means we’re just talking air strikes or daring raids to arrest people. It will be way harder to repeat the arrest of Maduro in Iran: that’s not going to happen. So, what’s left? Something that’s more symbolic? That could give the protesters the moral support they need. That could turn the population against the protesters as it fits the regime’s narrative that they’re all US-backed saboteurs. I’ve no idea.
Trump is still high on the success of Operation Southern Spear, going around saying he’s the interim President of Venezuela. At some point, the US electorate and media may pay more attention to how he isn’t and that the Chavistas are still more or less doing all the same things they did before. If we’re lucky, the Iranian regime may actually fall, but there’s a good chance that the US bomb and the regime stay in place. What does Trump do then? Pick on Greenland?
So, after the airstrikes have been and gone, what happens to all the demonstrators that Trump has told to keep at it, despite the thousands of them being blinded or killed?
A rhetorical question, since we all know the answer.
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
"We will be very very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are!"
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
What they are going to do about it is absolutely fuck all.
I hope that Denmark and allies kill a few hundred Americans if they invade Greenland.
Actions must have consequences. And troops should refuse the orders of invading NATO territory.
"Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
What they are going to do about it is absolutely fuck all.
Worse than that, they're going to have to pretend it's not really happening at all, if they want to pretend there's still a NATO and it hasn't been annulled in a more embarrassing way than a delegate swallowing the treaty.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
If we/they were serious there would already be a poison pill on Greenland.
This is why I'm so sceptical of pushes to increase defence spending. There is zero appetite to use it, so what's the point. We won't even seize Russian shadow fleet vessels fiddling with our cables.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
If we/they were serious there would already be a poison pill on Greenland.
Exactly. If Denmark had any intention of the defying the US they would asked them to leave Thule and reinforced it with their "allies".
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
If we/they were serious there would already be a poison pill on Greenland.
This is why I'm so sceptical of pushes to increase defence spending. There is zero appetite to use it, so what's the point. We won't even seize Russian shadow fleet vessels fiddling with our cables.
Like what? Genuine question, what do you think the EU can do as a poison pill?
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
If we/they were serious there would already be a poison pill on Greenland.
This is why I'm so sceptical of pushes to increase defence spending. There is zero appetite to use it, so what's the point. We won't even seize Russian shadow fleet vessels fiddling with our cables.
Frankly there should already be a response to the threats.
Kick the Americans out of an American base in Europe that they value. Not the most important one, but something sufficiently important to show intent.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
If we/they were serious there would already be a poison pill on Greenland.
This is why I'm so sceptical of pushes to increase defence spending. There is zero appetite to use it, so what's the point. We won't even seize Russian shadow fleet vessels fiddling with our cables.
Like what? Genuine question, what do you think the EU can do as a poison pill?
Put troops on it. Or David Attenborough/Judi Dench.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
What they are going to do about it is absolutely fuck all.
The only one who can do anything about it is God, or yet another assassin.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
If we/they were serious there would already be a poison pill on Greenland.
This is why I'm so sceptical of pushes to increase defence spending. There is zero appetite to use it, so what's the point. We won't even seize Russian shadow fleet vessels fiddling with our cables.
Like what? Genuine question, what do you think the EU can do as a poison pill?
Put troops on it. Or David Attenborough/Judi Dench.
Troops on it was what I was suggesting. Deploying the Judi Dench, let alone David Attenborough is probably going a bit far.
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
What they are going to do about it is absolutely fuck all.
I wish I didn't agree with you, but I do. If they were going to mount a credible defence of Greenland the logistics for it would be underway by now. But all that's happened is a token force of Danish troops deployed.
It really is quite disheartening. Europe deserves its reputation as a bloc too sacred to use force, even when their own territory is being invaded.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
Trump and his administration have come to believe that they can get outcomes with limited strikes, which is (in their minds) how they’re better than previous administrations that got mired in extensive military interventions. At least, that’s my guess as to their thinking. I don’t believe there’s any appetite, even among MAGA, for an invasion, of anywhere.
So, that means we’re just talking air strikes or daring raids to arrest people. It will be way harder to repeat the arrest of Maduro in Iran: that’s not going to happen. So, what’s left? Something that’s more symbolic? That could give the protesters the moral support they need. That could turn the population against the protesters as it fits the regime’s narrative that they’re all US-backed saboteurs. I’ve no idea.
Trump is still high on the success of Operation Southern Spear, going around saying he’s the interim President of Venezuela. At some point, the US electorate and media may pay more attention to how he isn’t and that the Chavistas are still more or less doing all the same things they did before. If we’re lucky, the Iranian regime may actually fall, but there’s a good chance that the US bomb and the regime stay in place. What does Trump do then? Pick on Greenland?
So, after the airstrikes have been and gone, what happens to all the demonstrators that Trump has told to keep at it, despite the thousands of them being blinded or killed?
A rhetorical question, since we all know the answer.
Imagine Trump or the Israelis caring about Iranian protestors? They want a failed state that will not contest the region and can be bombed at will.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
I noted yesterday that apparently the US is planning on attacking Iranian nuclear sites again, despite Trump claiming that they were "completely and totally obliterated" before.
The amount of doublethink coming out of the Whitehouse is ridiculous, and it seems not one person close to Trump ever has the nerve to tell him that he is wrong.
I've no doubt that that this administration is going to be truly catastrophic in time, but how it develops I can not guess as there are simply too many potential disasters to ponder.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
Mmm. The history of air strikes would suggest that those alone would merely strengthen the regime.
The one counterfactual is in Afghanistan, where airstrikes allowed the Northern Coalition to push the Taliban out of Kabul (at least for nearly two decades, anyway).
The Kurds in western Iran have some forces, but I don't know if they would be strong enough to defeat the regime with air strikes alone.
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
What they are going to do about it is absolutely fuck all.
I wish I didn't agree with you, but I do. If they were going to mount a credible defence of Greenland the logistics for it would be underway by now. But all that's happened is a token force of Danish troops deployed.
It really is quite disheartening. Europe deserves its reputation as a bloc too sacred to use force, even when their own territory is being invaded.
You don't need a credible defence - none exists. You just need to put enough troops on so there is a chance some aggro squaddie from Grimsby [insert European equivalents] actually takes a shot at them. That is possibly the only thing that might deter Trump.
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
What they are going to do about it is absolutely fuck all.
I wish I didn't agree with you, but I do. If they were going to mount a credible defence of Greenland the logistics for it would be underway by now. But all that's happened is a token force of Danish troops deployed.
It really is quite disheartening. Europe deserves its reputation as a bloc too sacred to use force, even when their own territory is being invaded.
On the other hand, a baker's dozen of Germans troops are going to Greenland, so that's fine.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
Mmm. The history of air strikes would suggest that those alone would merely strengthen the regime.
There's nothing like an external enemy to get the people behind the government.
Does that apply when the people are asking for airstrikes against their government?
I think it's likely too late for the protests anyway - I think they've been almost completely crushed now - but we'll soon find out what effect the airstrikes have.
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
What they are going to do about it is absolutely fuck all.
I wish I didn't agree with you, but I do. If they were going to mount a credible defence of Greenland the logistics for it would be underway by now. But all that's happened is a token force of Danish troops deployed.
It really is quite disheartening. Europe deserves its reputation as a bloc too sacred to use force, even when their own territory is being invaded.
You don't need a credible defence - none exists. You just need to put enough troops on so there is a chance some aggro squaddie from Grimsby [insert European equivalents] actually takes a shot at them. That is possibly the only thing that might deter Trump.
And the threat is a simple one: if you invade Greenland, then the chances of Europeans ever buying American products is basically zero.
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
What they are going to do about it is absolutely fuck all.
I wish I didn't agree with you, but I do. If they were going to mount a credible defence of Greenland the logistics for it would be underway by now. But all that's happened is a token force of Danish troops deployed.
It really is quite disheartening. Europe deserves its reputation as a bloc too sacred to use force, even when their own territory is being invaded.
You don't need a credible defence - none exists. You just need to put enough troops on so there is a chance some aggro squaddie from Grimsby [insert European equivalents] actually takes a shot at them. That is possibly the only thing that might deter Trump.
I honestly would have thought the best thing to do with Trump is screw with his head. Given that he's an idiot, a narcissist, has the memory of a goldfish, and is easily flattered, you would think there must be some dirty-tricks department somewhere that could put the wind up him, or steer him onto a different course.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
What they are going to do about it is absolutely fuck all.
I wish I didn't agree with you, but I do. If they were going to mount a credible defence of Greenland the logistics for it would be underway by now. But all that's happened is a token force of Danish troops deployed.
It really is quite disheartening. Europe deserves its reputation as a bloc too sacred to use force, even when their own territory is being invaded.
You don't need a credible defence - none exists. You just need to put enough troops on so there is a chance some aggro squaddie from Grimsby [insert European equivalents] actually takes a shot at them. That is possibly the only thing that might deter Trump.
I honestly would have thought the best thing to do with Trump is screw with his head. Given that he's an idiot, a narcissist, has the memory of a goldfish, and is easily flattered, you would think there must be some dirty-tricks department somewhere that could put the wind up him, or steer him onto a different course.
Or you announce a referendum in Greenland, and see what happens.
His joke was a crass and stupid one especially in the week they’ve nailed their mast to going after X for images he’s happy to make seventies sitcom gags about sex. What’s it with the left and extreme right they’re obsessed with sex. Flagshaggers from the moronic left and everyone is a paedo from the moronic right.
He’s inept.
I just cannot agree that our PM using a sexual inneudo in the present climate is appropriate
It is childish, and I am not at all sure his female mps will be impressed
It worked though, he won this weeks PMQ v Kemi.
Rather than air of crisis, Labour heirachy are getting confident, even bullish. Their PPB today was nonchalant in this situation, that they are turning it around and will come back to popularity on delivery.
I guess Labour think they win the next General Election by just 1% on PV from Con or Ref with the other close behind, it’s a Labour majority with tactical votes?
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
Mmm. The history of air strikes would suggest that those alone would merely strengthen the regime.
There's nothing like an external enemy to get the people behind the government.
Does that apply when the people are asking for airstrikes against their government?
I think it's likely too late for the protests anyway - I think they've been almost completely crushed now - but we'll soon find out what effect the airstrikes have.
There are always a lot of waverers in these situations, not everyone is hardcore for one faction or the other.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
If we/they were serious there would already be a poison pill on Greenland.
This is why I'm so sceptical of pushes to increase defence spending. There is zero appetite to use it, so what's the point. We won't even seize Russian shadow fleet vessels fiddling with our cables.
Like what? Genuine question, what do you think the EU can do as a poison pill?
Put troops on it. Or David Attenborough/Judi Dench.
Andrew Battenberg-Gateau (or whatever the feck he’s calling himself) as consul to Greenland. Finally Trump will have someone on his wavelength.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
If we/they were serious there would already be a poison pill on Greenland.
This is why I'm so sceptical of pushes to increase defence spending. There is zero appetite to use it, so what's the point. We won't even seize Russian shadow fleet vessels fiddling with our cables.
The main reason we're scared of confronting Russia is that we're aware we don't have the military capability to sustain such a conflict. So we need investment in more capability to create that confidence.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
Mmm. The history of air strikes would suggest that those alone would merely strengthen the regime.
Not if the US bombs the various barracks of the IRGC which has about 150,000 personnel. They'd need to do it at night. That would seriously weaken the regime.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
I appreciate it’s solid sounding but it’s bollocks.
You're right but there are still discussions as to whether or not article 47.2 applies given their odd combination of circumstances, namely as an OCT and also, in a somewhat curious way, as a part of Denmark.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
What they are going to do about it is absolutely fuck all.
I wish I didn't agree with you, but I do. If they were going to mount a credible defence of Greenland the logistics for it would be underway by now. But all that's happened is a token force of Danish troops deployed.
It really is quite disheartening. Europe deserves its reputation as a bloc too sacred to use force, even when their own territory is being invaded.
You don't need a credible defence - none exists. You just need to put enough troops on so there is a chance some aggro squaddie from Grimsby [insert European equivalents] actually takes a shot at them. That is possibly the only thing that might deter Trump.
And the threat is a simple one: if you invade Greenland, then the chances of Europeans ever buying American products is basically zero.
Also NATO will be dissolved and American bases in Europe (and the UK) will be closed.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
Mmm. The history of air strikes would suggest that those alone would merely strengthen the regime.
The one counterfactual is in Afghanistan, where airstrikes allowed the Northern Coalition to push the Taliban out of Kabul (at least for nearly two decades, anyway).
The Kurds in western Iran have some forces, but I don't know if they would be strong enough to defeat the regime with air strikes alone.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
If we/they were serious there would already be a poison pill on Greenland.
This is why I'm so sceptical of pushes to increase defence spending. There is zero appetite to use it, so what's the point. We won't even seize Russian shadow fleet vessels fiddling with our cables.
The main reason we're scared of confronting Russia is that we're aware we don't have the military capability to sustain such a conflict. So we need investment in more capability to create that confidence.
That's long been a critical weakness. None of the major European militaries can sustain high intensity operations for more than a couple of weeks now, and yes, there're well aware of that lack of depth. Air and sea lift capability is also seriously lacking, so getting the troops and hardware to anywhere not on mainland Europe is difficult.
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
What they are going to do about it is absolutely fuck all.
I wish I didn't agree with you, but I do. If they were going to mount a credible defence of Greenland the logistics for it would be underway by now. But all that's happened is a token force of Danish troops deployed.
It really is quite disheartening. Europe deserves its reputation as a bloc too sacred to use force, even when their own territory is being invaded.
You don't need a credible defence - none exists. You just need to put enough troops on so there is a chance some aggro squaddie from Grimsby [insert European equivalents] actually takes a shot at them. That is possibly the only thing that might deter Trump.
And the threat is a simple one: if you invade Greenland, then the chances of Europeans ever buying American products is basically zero.
It's not really the quid pro quo that he would be after. His two key objectives are the enrichment of Donald Trump and burying the Epstein files. He's done a fantastic job on both counts since this time last year.
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
If we/they were serious there would already be a poison pill on Greenland.
This is why I'm so sceptical of pushes to increase defence spending. There is zero appetite to use it, so what's the point. We won't even seize Russian shadow fleet vessels fiddling with our cables.
The main reason we're scared of confronting Russia is that we're aware we don't have the military capability to sustain such a conflict. So we need investment in more capability to create that confidence.
We should call their bluff, can't spend the next decade or so tiptoeing around them.
the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council.
They call on West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner, Simon Foster, to sack the West Midlands Police chief.
Both groups say they "welcome" Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood's expression of "no confidence" in Craig Guildford.
They say the report from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) into the issue has "confirmed our long-held concerns" that the force "sought evidence that supported a predetermined conclusion", and failed to "engage with the local Jewish community".
They call on Foster to "exercise his authority" and dismiss Guildford "without delay".
Birmingham's imams should similarly call for the Chief Constable's dismissal on the grounds police had failed "to engage with the local Islamic community" and slandered Muslims by suggesting they were a rabid mob who'd attack football fans.
A shame Cameron went, I thought he was really rather good. And, @FrancisUrquhart, I thought Hague was going to be a great PM too.
Cameron went, leaving the country in an utter mess, precisely because he was not very good. Not very good at all.
I'm not a fan of Cameron at all, and I've criticised his strategy over the Brexit referendum heavily in the past - criticisms you could extend to all three referendums under his governments - and there are many more criticisms of him to make besides, but when you compare him to the PMs who have followed his ability to talk to the public, to make a political case, to lead a Cabinet of capable (if, I might argue, misguided) ministers, put him very far ahead of those that have followed.
Judged on his own measures of success - keeping things much the same, being a figurehead, doing a bit of politics etc., he was quite good, or 'rather good at it' as he revealingly put it. But he was all presentation.
A lot of being PM is precisely that - good presentation. Ideally you're the front man for a talented Cabinet that knows what it's doing policy wise, and the job of PM is to be the figure head who sells the politics to the public.
Ideally the political judgements the PM makes are largely made when they choose who to appoint to their Cabinet. The idea that the PM should be micromanaging policy across the entirety of government is a recipe for disaster, but seems to be the model that Britain is currently following.
I do have to give Cameron some credit for pushing back against that a bit.
That would be the case if those Ministers actually controlled their departments, but that's a polite fallacy. He wasn't letting Ministers have free rein - he knew they weren't excercising real power, and indeed he continued slicing away Ministers' power in favour of quangos during his time in office.
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
Put British, French, German, Italian and Canadian troops in Greenland pronto.
I note the German government has already acceded to my proposal.
Trump is going to seize Greenland. European leaders need to get their backsides out of that Egyptian river and decide what they're going to do about that.
What they are going to do about it is absolutely fuck all.
I wish I didn't agree with you, but I do. If they were going to mount a credible defence of Greenland the logistics for it would be underway by now. But all that's happened is a token force of Danish troops deployed.
It really is quite disheartening. Europe deserves its reputation as a bloc too sacred to use force, even when their own territory is being invaded.
You don't need a credible defence - none exists. You just need to put enough troops on so there is a chance some aggro squaddie from Grimsby [insert European equivalents] actually takes a shot at them. That is possibly the only thing that might deter Trump.
And the threat is a simple one: if you invade Greenland, then the chances of Europeans ever buying American products is basically zero.
Also NATO will be dissolved and American bases in Europe (and the UK) will be closed.
Not sure that is a threat to Trump and Vance.
Defo a threat to the deeper US military 'state' and associated Washington aides, analysts, policy experts etc. But they are out in the cold.
Question is really now whether the military will refuse the illegal order that is coming.
TRUMP: Well we're gonna see what happens with Greenland. We need Greenland for national security. If we don't go in Russia is gonna go in & China is gonna go in. And there's not a thing that Denmark can do about it. But we can do everything about it
Q: Would you be willing to leave NATO to get Greenland?
TRUMP: I wouldn't be telling you. But Greenland is very security for natl security. There's not a thing Denmark can do if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland. But there's everything we can do. You found that out last week with Venezuela
Greenland needs to hold firm and dare Trump to take military action . Although the GOP have generally been a spineless bunch this issue is one that might see a change there . You’ll still have the Trump fellators that will go along with it but I’d hope there’d be enough to say enough is enough .
I got dry january done in 16 hours, way ahead of schedule.
AFCON SF nil nil at the break. End to end stuff with aggressive positive football by both teams. Well worth the watch. Morocco having the best chances but Nigeria getting chances too.
Greenland needs to hold firm and dare Trump to take military action . Although the GOP have generally been a spineless bunch this issue is one that might see a change there . You’ll still have the Trump fellators that will go along with it but I’d hope there’d be enough to say enough is enough .
Just LOL.
The discovery of spines in GOP is less likely than elvis being found alive on the moon.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
"He really f*cking means it you guys, stop acting like this is funny or not serious"
The European Union Treaty article 42(7) provides:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
If we/they were serious there would already be a poison pill on Greenland.
This is why I'm so sceptical of pushes to increase defence spending. There is zero appetite to use it, so what's the point. We won't even seize Russian shadow fleet vessels fiddling with our cables.
The main reason we're scared of confronting Russia is that we're aware we don't have the military capability to sustain such a conflict. So we need investment in more capability to create that confidence.
I doubt if Russia is in any position to sustain an additional conflict, while the SMO is continuing.
"Reuters has reported that Donald Trump appears to have decided on a military strike against Iran, with action potentially coming within the next 24 hours.
Two European officials told the news agency that US military intervention appeared likely, with one saying it could take place within the next day.
An Israeli official also said it appeared Trump had decided to intervene, although the scope and timing of any strike had yet to be made clear."
Comments
Ideally the political judgements the PM makes are largely made when they choose who to appoint to their Cabinet. The idea that the PM should be micromanaging policy across the entirety of government is a recipe for disaster, but seems to be the model that Britain is currently following.
I do have to give Cameron some credit for pushing back against that a bit.
Odds of over 312000-1.*
*Assuming evenly matched players. Which, as it is the Top 16 only, is a fairly good approximation.
🇩🇰🇬🇱foreign ministers speaking now in Washington following their very short meeting in the White House.
They look shell shocked.
"Our perspectives continue to differ."
https://bsky.app/profile/davekeating.substack.com/post/3mcfqwgglg22z
I realise that plenty of Tories have positive feelings for Reform, but I thought one of the quirkier* aspects of the anti-Reform polling was that there were plenty of Tories who would vote against Reform, and left wing voters who would vote Tory in a Reform-Tory race.
*I saw quirkier, but I can understand why.
I have a horrible feeling this will all backfire. But there are some reasons for the US to act now if it is ever going to. The regime is unlikely to be weaker, Russia is too busy in Ukraine to intervene, and Syria is currently out of the picture too.
That said, it is hard to see what a halfway measure like the odd air strike will do to dislodge the regime. If they’re going to do it, they surely have to be prepared to move in and finish the job - and that would be a huge decision.
The history of air strikes would suggest that those alone would merely strengthen the regime.
No, I have no idea either, except that the Tories by 2029 will be doing better than they are now.
It will be funny, for low values of funny, if Trump does it because Starmer will feel he has to join in.
So, that means we’re just talking air strikes or daring raids to arrest people. It will be way harder to repeat the arrest of Maduro in Iran: that’s not going to happen. So, what’s left? Something that’s more symbolic? That could give the protesters the moral support they need. That could turn the population against the protesters as it fits the regime’s narrative that they’re all US-backed saboteurs. I’ve no idea.
Trump is still high on the success of Operation Southern Spear, going around saying he’s the interim President of Venezuela. At some point, the US electorate and media may pay more attention to how he isn’t and that the Chavistas are still more or less doing all the same things they did before. If we’re lucky, the Iranian regime may actually fall, but there’s a good chance that the US bomb and the regime stay in place. What does Trump do then? Pick on Greenland?
Actions must have consequences. And troops should refuse the orders of invading NATO territory.
I'm not sure what kind of "military action" the Americans will take in Iran and I'm also far from clear how effective it will be in crippling or breaking the regime which seems, as far as I can tell, to have weathered the latest storm of protest.
I presume there will be an attempt to paralyse the security forces by precision strikes and the political leadership likewise but that does not in and of itself a revolution make if those opposed can no longer muster the energy so to do.
Without some group or grouping able to tke advantage, the regime will regain its strength and control.
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Greenland is a member state of the EU since February last year. Any military attack on it will thus trigger this obligation. What the EU need to do is show that they are not willing to let the US march into Greenland. I would suggest elements of Eurocorps really ought to be deployed there now. Of course, they would not be able to resist a full throated US attack but they would make it clear what is involved, namely a declaration of war on the EU.
A rhetorical question, since we all know the answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_Greenland_from_the_European_Communities
This is why I'm so sceptical of pushes to increase defence spending. There is zero appetite to use it, so what's the point. We won't even seize Russian shadow fleet vessels fiddling with our cables.
This was Frank Carson's catchphrase because, although his jokes were crap, his delivery made them funny.
Sir Keir... no. He delivers jokes in the same boring, Major-esque way he answers questions seriously. Imagine him doing a best man's speech, fuck me
Kick the Americans out of an American base in Europe that they value. Not the most important one, but something sufficiently important to show intent.
It really is quite disheartening. Europe deserves its reputation as a bloc too sacred to use force, even when their own territory is being invaded.
Freescoring Nigeria vs Marocco with home advantage, its likely to be a tough match.
I have a purple drinking voucher* on Nigeria.
* for those who remember C*A*S*H
The amount of doublethink coming out of the Whitehouse is ridiculous, and it seems not one person close to Trump ever has the nerve to tell him that he is wrong.
I've no doubt that that this administration is going to be truly catastrophic in time, but how it develops I can not guess as there are simply too many potential disasters to ponder.
https://www.lanfrancoaceti.com/2025/03/make-eggs-cheap-again-trump-beggs-europe-to-end-the-pancake-crisis/
Or this one where Ukraine requests EU membership for Russia?
https://www.lanfrancoaceti.com/2025/03/zelenskyy-announces-new-strategy-no-nato-no-repayment-to-u-s-eu-accession-for-russia-and-ukraine/
The correct position was reported in the Guardian two days ago -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/12/donald-trump-greenland-eu-membership-europe
I appreciate it’s solid sounding but it’s bollocks.
The Kurds in western Iran have some forces, but I don't know if they would be strong enough to defeat the regime with air strikes alone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cn824zzp670t
You either stand up to Trump and tell him to fuck off. Or you do what he says. There is no 'negotiation'.
I think it's likely too late for the protests anyway - I think they've been almost completely crushed now - but we'll soon find out what effect the airstrikes have.
Rather than air of crisis, Labour heirachy are getting confident, even bullish. Their PPB today was nonchalant in this situation, that they are turning it around and will come back to popularity on delivery.
I guess Labour think they win the next General Election by just 1% on PV from Con or Ref with the other close behind, it’s a Labour majority with tactical votes?
They'd need to do it at night. That would seriously weaken the regime.
The best response would have been to pack Greenland with air defences and troops, and tell him "don't even think about it, Donny boy".
“EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas privately told lawmakers the state of the world meant it might be a “good moment” to start drinking.”
https://x.com/VeraMBergen/status/2011534279466160148?s=20
Defo a threat to the deeper US military 'state' and associated Washington aides, analysts, policy experts etc. But they are out in the cold.
Question is really now whether the military will refuse the illegal order that is coming.
TRUMP: Well we're gonna see what happens with Greenland. We need Greenland for national security. If we don't go in Russia is gonna go in & China is gonna go in. And there's not a thing that Denmark can do about it. But we can do everything about it
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar.com
· 1m
Q: Would you be willing to leave NATO to get Greenland?
TRUMP: I wouldn't be telling you. But Greenland is very security for natl security. There's not a thing Denmark can do if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland. But there's everything we can do. You found that out last week with Venezuela
Greenland needs to hold firm and dare Trump to take military action . Although the GOP have generally been a spineless bunch this issue is one that might see a change there . You’ll still have the Trump fellators that will go along with it but I’d hope there’d be enough to say enough is enough .
AFCON SF nil nil at the break. End to end stuff with aggressive positive football by both teams. Well worth the watch. Morocco having the best chances but Nigeria getting chances too.
Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and France will participate alongside Denmark to expanded military exercises in Greenland.
https://x.com/LauKaya/status/2011496562665419129?s=20
Just LOL.
The discovery of spines in GOP is less likely than elvis being found alive on the moon.
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar.com
Trump: "It's actually a legal definition -- 'whole milk.' And it's whole with a W for those of you that have a problem."
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mcfuogxvdw2t