Cruz, bitter? Yes. A dumb move. Similar to a person who Ioses a referendum and will not get over it.
Apparently Trump's remarks about his father were the last straw.
As for 2020, a lifetime away. So much depends on the scale of the GOP defeat - Trump could always try again if he loses narrowly. If it's a big loss, the GOP will be back to the drawing board and that presumably includes Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio not that I think his whole-hearted endorsement of Trump has done him any favours.
I'm also constantly being reminded by Fox News of the wealth of younger Republican leadership among Governors and in the House. Ryan will only be 50 in 2020 - if I were to put some of your money on the next GOP candidate, he'd be where I start.
I think it's a strong move...
Cruz can say I stood up for conservative values... while Marco kowtowed to liberal, pork-barrel spending, Godless Trump... got to be a reasonable chance Trump says something outrageous that the evangelicals/conservatives really hate in the election...
Surely Pence will do the religious stuff now? I'm detecting a lot of Can't Be Trump thinking on PB - just like he'd never be nominated, and Brexit wouldn't win.
The political kaleidoscope has been shaken again and again - and yet the status quo-ers are thinking it can't happen once more.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
No, it doesn't.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
Incidentally this is what Cameron's much mocked ' WW3 ' speech during the referendum campaign was about. Think of it as a slot machine and your trying to get three Mushroom Clouds in a row instead of Cherries to win 1939. The first Mushroom Cloud is Brexit. The second would be Trump winning. I think Le Pen winning would be the third need to win. Cameron's implicit argument for those with sense to see was this. The western international order is an ecosystem. You might find the EU a rodent but playing with complex ecosystems is dangerous. We'll have to hope the other two Black Cherries don't align.
What a load of verbose twaddle.
Cameron was scaremongering without basis in anything except desperate desire to cling on.
If contemporary British voters don't want Latvians to come here to work full time keeping our underfunded Care system ridiculously cheap will they really fight a nuclear war to defend Latvia ? Politico-Cultural shifts have consequences.
Yes, good ones often.
Honestly, if you wring your hands any harder they will fall off.
Today I wring my hands, tomorrow you'll be ringing alarm bells.
blah blah. I used to enjoy your posts. They are pathetic now.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
The UK only manages to claim to meet the 2% obligation by including stuff that is not normally viewed as defence expenditure - an Osborne accounting trick.
Really? Like what?
I think they added intelligence services into the MoD numbers (although in my mind it is very reasonable to do so)
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
Out of interest... does it not scare you a little to lay at such big odds? That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
A few days before the libertarian convention, I backed him for £2.2k @ 999/1.
Wow.
So someone was on the other side of that? Was it Betfair or a bookie... you would have won... 2 million pounds?
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
Out of interest... does it not scare you a little to lay at such big odds? That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
Why would it scare him when he's backed him at 1000 ?
Ah okay- didn't realize that. I am intrigued though to find the people who do offer these enormously long odds...
You can manufacture a position where you can offer to lay candidates at 1000.0 by laying other candidates at shorter odds. Not sure if every 1000.0 layer is in this position though.
Cruz, bitter? Yes. A dumb move. Similar to a person who Ioses a referendum and will not get over it.
Apparently Trump's remarks about his father were the last straw.
As for 2020, a lifetime away. So much depends on the scale of the GOP defeat - Trump could always try again if he loses narrowly. If it's a big loss, the GOP will be back to the drawing board and that presumably includes Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio not that I think his whole-hearted endorsement of Trump has done him any favours.
I'm also constantly being reminded by Fox News of the wealth of younger Republican leadership among Governors and in the House. Ryan will only be 50 in 2020 - if I were to put some of your money on the next GOP candidate, he'd be where I start.
I think it's a strong move...
Cruz can say I stood up for conservative values... while Marco kowtowed to liberal, pork-barrel spending, Godless Trump... got to be a reasonable chance Trump says something outrageous that the evangelicals/conservatives really hate in the election...
Surely Pence will do the religious stuff now? I'm detecting a lot of Can't Be Trump thinking on PB - just like he'd never be nominated, and Brexit wouldn't win.
The political kaleidoscope has been shaken again and again - and yet the status quo-ers are thinking it can't happen once more.
Fair enough. I bet on him strongly in the nomination once my Kasich longshot didn't work out. I didn't think Brexit would happen until the very end. I still think the demographics in the general are just so tough for him.
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
Out of interest... does it not scare you a little to lay at such big odds? That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
A few days before the libertarian convention, I backed him for £2.2k @ 999/1.
I'm intrigued to know what your book is worth now !
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
No, it doesn't.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
The T in NATO stands for Treaty. It has exactly the same legal basis as the European Union. The only way in which an EU army is 'just different' is that it impinges on identity and so feels more permanent, but as Brexit shows, it isn't.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
The UK only manages to claim to meet the 2% obligation by including stuff that is not normally viewed as defence expenditure - an Osborne accounting trick.
Really? Like what?
It includes war pension provisions, pensions for MoD civvies and a couple of other items like MoD's earnings. If you strip those out, we dip to 1.97%, which is of course, symbolic of something or other.
People are arguing that the SIA budget should be included in defence spending. I could see the argue for Cheltenham's budget being included. But therein lies the UK's problem. Always looking at headline figures. We get poor value from our defence budget, so arguing about the 2% doesn't address the real issue.
Do we know what other EU members and the USA throw into their 2%? Or not as the case may be?
I wouldn't want us to flog ourselves over this by being puritanical. 2% is another arbitrary figure.
Have you seen NATO's reports? Life is too short to go diving in that particular sewer.
I would be easily persuaded that other countries indulge in all kinds of shenanigans, but I'm not prepared to put the tedious effort in to analysing line item expenditure .
I find getting to the end of a long PB thread header tricky. Some fellow PBers have an enormous capacity for detail that deserted me years ago.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
No, it doesn't.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
The T in NATO stands for Treaty. It has exactly the same legal basis as the European Union. The only way in which an EU army is 'just different' is that it impinges on identity and so feels more permanent, but as Brexit shows, it isn't.
The European Union is in the process of becoming a country, and NATO isn't.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
Collectively it would make a difference, in addition to Germany pulling their weight. This is why any fantasy of an EU army without the UK is a joke.
That "in addition to Germany pulling their weight" part is doing a lot of work in that sentence...
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
Out of interest... does it not scare you a little to lay at such big odds? That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
I can understand people doing it if they have the cash - there's nowhere to put it these days that pays any significant interest rate, so the betting exchanges have become high-interest savings accounts.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
No, it doesn't.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
The T in NATO stands for Treaty. It has exactly the same legal basis as the European Union. The only way in which an EU army is 'just different' is that it impinges on identity and so feels more permanent, but as Brexit shows, it isn't.
The European Union is in the process of becoming a country, and NATO isn't.
You can characterise it however you like. In the end it remains a series of treaties concluded between sovereign entities and this is unlikely to change.
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
Out of interest... does it not scare you a little to lay at such big odds? That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
A few days before the libertarian convention, I backed him for £2.2k @ 999/1.
I presume all the lumpy lays are yours then. Good luck with the £16k @ 3/1 :-)
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
The UK only manages to claim to meet the 2% obligation by including stuff that is not normally viewed as defence expenditure - an Osborne accounting trick.
Really? Like what?
It includes war pension provisions, pensions for MoD civvies and a couple of other items like MoD's earnings. If you strip those out, we dip to 1.97%, which is of course, symbolic of something or other.
People are arguing that the SIA budget should be included in defence spending. I could see the argue for Cheltenham's budget being included. But therein lies the UK's problem. Always looking at headline figures. We get poor value from our defence budget, so arguing about the 2% doesn't address the real issue.
The navy is short of at least 2 destroyers, and 7 frigates. Attack subs and nuclear subs are about right. Carriers are right. 130-160 F35s is prob right. It is not funded enough to man them.
The RAF is short of about 3-4 front line squadrons. We don't have enough maritime survelliance or transport yet but are addressing it. Chinook fleet is about right.
We don't really have an army, just a milita. Army 2020 was right about moving to highly flexible brigades but, if we're serious, that needs to reexpand now by at least 15,000 regulars. I'd focus on armoured and mobile infantry for now rather than heavy artillery/tanks.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
Voluntarily. That is the difference.
NATO mobilisation...voluntary? Don't think so.
Name a single aggressive war where our forces have been mobilised by NATO against our will. Just one will suffice.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
No, it doesn't.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
The T in NATO stands for Treaty. It has exactly the same legal basis as the European Union. The only way in which an EU army is 'just different' is that it impinges on identity and so feels more permanent, but as Brexit shows, it isn't.
The European Union is in the process of becoming a country, and NATO isn't.
You can characterise it however you like. In the end it remains a series of treaties concluded between sovereign entities and this is unlikely to change.
Well, it's a view.
But if it were reality, we wouldn't have voted to Leave.
Cruz, bitter? Yes. A dumb move. Similar to a person who Ioses a referendum and will not get over it.
Apparently Trump's remarks about his father were the last straw.
As for 2020, a lifetime away. So much depends on the scale of the GOP defeat - Trump could always try again if he loses narrowly. If it's a big loss, the GOP will be back to the drawing board and that presumably includes Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio not that I think his whole-hearted endorsement of Trump has done him any favours.
I'm also constantly being reminded by Fox News of the wealth of younger Republican leadership among Governors and in the House. Ryan will only be 50 in 2020 - if I were to put some of your money on the next GOP candidate, he'd be where I start.
I think it's a strong move...
Cruz can say I stood up for conservative values... while Marco kowtowed to liberal, pork-barrel spending, Godless Trump... got to be a reasonable chance Trump says something outrageous that the evangelicals/conservatives really hate in the election...
Surely Pence will do the religious stuff now? I'm detecting a lot of Can't Be Trump thinking on PB - just like he'd never be nominated, and Brexit wouldn't win.
The political kaleidoscope has been shaken again and again - and yet the status quo-ers are thinking it can't happen once more.
Fair enough. I bet on him strongly in the nomination once my Kasich longshot didn't work out. I didn't think Brexit would happen until the very end. I still think the demographics in the general are just so tough for him.
Totally agree on the demographics - but then again Brexit polling was discounted heavily by most firms at every turn because of DNVers - who did.
Obama benefited from shed loads of DNVers who did - I'm not convinced that they're turning out for HRC instead.
Can Trump do the opposite for the disenfranchised whites? I'm very chary about trusting any of the analysts. Most lean Left - as they do it in UK - and there's been a lot of confirmation bias.
The UK only manages to claim to meet the 2% obligation by including stuff that is not normally viewed as defence expenditure - an Osborne accounting trick.
It's not an Osborne accounting trick, it's NATO's own definition.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
No, it doesn't.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
The T in NATO stands for Treaty. It has exactly the same legal basis as the European Union. The only way in which an EU army is 'just different' is that it impinges on identity and so feels more permanent, but as Brexit shows, it isn't.
The European Union is in the process of becoming a country, and NATO isn't.
You can characterise it however you like. In the end it remains a series of treaties concluded between sovereign entities and this is unlikely to change.
Well, it's a view.
But if it were reality, we wouldn't have voted to Leave.
If it were not reality, we wouldn't have been able to vote to Leave.
If the Baltic states upped their collective defence expenditure from 1% of GDP to the minimum 2% of GDP there wouldn't be much of a threat from Putin, US sabre-rattling or not..
IIUC Estonia is already over 2%, and you're not going to do much to the geo-political balance of power on an extra 1% of Latvian and Lithuanian GDP.
The UK only manages to claim to meet the 2% obligation by including stuff that is not normally viewed as defence expenditure - an Osborne accounting trick.
Really? Like what?
It includes war pension provisions, pensions for MoD civvies and a couple of other items like MoD's earnings. If you strip those out, we dip to 1.97%, which is of course, symbolic of something or other.
People are arguing that the SIA budget should be included in defence spending. I could see the argue for Cheltenham's budget being included. But therein lies the UK's problem. Always looking at headline figures. We get poor value from our defence budget, so arguing about the 2% doesn't address the real issue.
The navy is short of at least 2 destroyers, and 7 frigates. Attack subs and nuclear subs are about right. Carriers are right. 130-160 F35s is prob right. It is not funded enough to man them.
The RAF is short of about 3-4 front line squadrons. We don't have enough maritime survelliance or transport yet but are addressing it. Chinook fleet is about right.
We don't really have an army, just a milita. Army 2020 was right about moving to highly flexible brigades but, if we're serious, that needs to reexpand now by at least 15,000 regulars. I'd focus on armoured and mobile infantry for now rather than heavy artillery/tanks.
Special forces are about right.
Space cannons and trebuchets are woefully under strength.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
No, it doesn't.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
Yet it's enough to confuse you.
My point is and was that many on here have screamed blue murder at the thought of our armed forces being put under command of foreigners. Whereas not only has that happened in the past, but it is currently the case.
I don't think there would have been or will be an EU army but that is not the issue. People are worried about the sovereignty of our armed forces. But historically, and now if NATO mobilises (note @Philip_Thompson: it hasn't yet) we would have no such sovereign independence. And we are all happy with that.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
This is missing the point, though. Eurosceptics don't oppose an EU army from xenophobia. They do so for political reasons.
I have no objection at all to a defensive alliance with our EU neighbours, or opting in to certain European military missions.
What I do object to is subsuming elements of our armed forces within the command of a federal union that has its own legal identity, global foreign policy and security objectives, and reports to its own foreign minister and President.
So would I. An EU army is never going to happen. My point is that in the past (WW1, WW2) and now (NATO) we have effectively placed our armed forces wholly under the command of foreign powers, and many have said, short of an EU army, that this is what they object to.
Press releases and documents from the EU over recent weeks make it clear that it will happen.
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
Out of interest... does it not scare you a little to lay at such big odds? That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
A few days before the libertarian convention, I backed him for £2.2k @ 999/1.
I'm intrigued to know what your book is worth now !
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
No, it doesn't.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
Yet it's enough to confuse you.
My point is and was that many on here have screamed blue murder at the thought of our armed forces being put under command of foreigners. Whereas not only has that happened in the past, but it is currently the case.
I don't think there would have been or will be an EU army but that is not the issue. People are worried about the sovereignty of our armed forces. But historically, and now if NATO mobilises (note @Philip_Thompson: it hasn't yet) we would have no such sovereign independence. And we are all happy with that.
You seem to be wilfully missing the points that have been made to you several times downthread.
Let's ponder the offending article, rather than just keep pulling factoids out of our arses.
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ."
Article 5 in all its wordy, ambiguous, loophole-ly glory. This is 1949 folks, when armed attack meant 8th Guards Army rolling through the Fulda Gap. Warfare has become rather more nuanced in the 21st century.
The MOD's earrings???!!! Sorry, I don't believe that.
MoD has a departmental income of about £1.4 billion p.a. I'm sorry if that's hard to believe .
Property development and rental income I'd assume?
Yes, plus we sell surplus gear, fuel etc and rent our personnel, that last item being the biggest earner (~£350m).
Hmmh.
May be you should look at IPO'ing that staffing business. At £350m of revenues you'd probably make around £70m in profits so it would be around in the order of £600-700m. Of course you'd want to keep a majority stake, but you could probably crystalise £300m upfront...
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
No, it doesn't.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
The T in NATO stands for Treaty. It has exactly the same legal basis as the European Union. The only way in which an EU army is 'just different' is that it impinges on identity and so feels more permanent, but as Brexit shows, it isn't.
The European Union is in the process of becoming a country, and NATO isn't.
You can characterise it however you like. In the end it remains a series of treaties concluded between sovereign entities and this is unlikely to change.
Well, it's a view.
But if it were reality, we wouldn't have voted to Leave.
If it were not reality, we wouldn't have been able to vote to Leave.
I said *becoming* a country, not *has become* a country.
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
Out of interest... does it not scare you a little to lay at such big odds? That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
A few days before the libertarian convention, I backed him for £2.2k @ 999/1.
I presume all the lumpy lays are yours then. Good luck with the £16k @ 3/1 :-)
What I do object to is subsuming elements of our armed forces within the command of a federal union that has its own legal identity, global foreign policy and security objectives, and reports to its own foreign minister and President.
Minus the President that's exactly what NATO is. It may be clearer to see this if you are on the opposing side - the Russians talk constantly about what NATO is doing or not doing and what the Secretary General of NATO is saying.
No, it isn't. And I think you know this perfectly well.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
Voluntarily. That is the difference.
NATO mobilisation...voluntary? Don't think so.
Name a single aggressive war where our forces have been mobilised by NATO against our will. Just one will suffice.
The MOD's earrings???!!! Sorry, I don't believe that.
MoD has a departmental income of about £1.4 billion p.a. I'm sorry if that's hard to believe .
Property development and rental income I'd assume?
Yes, plus we sell surplus gear, fuel etc and rent our personnel, that last item being the biggest earner (~£350m).
Hmmh.
May be you should look at IPO'ing that staffing business. At £350m of revenues you'd probably make around £70m in profits so it would be around in the order of £600-700m. Of course you'd want to keep a majority stake, but you could probably crystalise £300m upfront...
But if it were reality, we wouldn't have voted to Leave.
If it were not reality, we wouldn't have been able to vote to Leave.
I said *becoming* a country, not *has become* a country.
Yes but there is a discrete change between the two states that can't happen by accident or without anyone noticing. In the sense you mean it will always be *becoming* a country but never actually make it.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
Yet it's enough to confuse you.
My point is and was that many on here have screamed blue murder at the thought of our armed forces being put under command of foreigners. Whereas not only has that happened in the past, but it is currently the case.
I don't think there would have been or will be an EU army but that is not the issue. People are worried about the sovereignty of our armed forces. But historically, and now if NATO mobilises (note @Philip_Thompson: it hasn't yet) we would have no such sovereign independence. And we are all happy with that.
You seem to be wilfully missing the points that have been made to you several times downthread.
He ignores points that don't agree with his world view.
We saw the same with his views on the City & Brexit.
It's hardly worth debating with him - his responses are usually "I'm right, you're wrong. You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying"
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I. a defensive alliance
I was doing no such thin. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Genn forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
No, it doesn't.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
Yet it's enough to confuse you.
My point is and was independence. And we are all happy with that.
You seem to be wilfully missing the points that have been made to you several times downthread.
First of all, we have voted to leave the EU so whether or not there is an EU army is a matter of detached interest. I don't happen to think there will be one. Go crazy, disagree.
Secondly, it is the principle that interests me. Brexiters shouted long and loud about the very thought of us placing our forces under the command of Johnny EU. Unconscionable, they said.
And yet, we do exactly the same thing to the US via NATO, whose supreme commander is American and, let's face it, whose foreign policy is that of the US.
So:
HMF under foreign powers I = bad. HMF under foreign power 2 = good.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
Voluntarily. That is the difference.
NATO mobilisation...voluntary? Don't think so.
Name a single aggressive war where our forces have been mobilised by NATO against our will. Just one will suffice.
NATO hasn't been mobilised.
Yes it has, in Libya against Gaddafi.
There's a difference between the treaty being invoked and a voluntary agreement to use the existing structures for an ad hoc operation for practical reasons.
The MOD's earrings???!!! Sorry, I don't believe that.
MoD has a departmental income of about £1.4 billion p.a. I'm sorry if that's hard to believe .
Property development and rental income I'd assume?
Yes, plus we sell surplus gear, fuel etc and rent our personnel, that last item being the biggest earner (~£350m).
Hmmh.
May be you should look at IPO'ing that staffing business. At £350m of revenues you'd probably make around £70m in profits so it would be around in the order of £600-700m. Of course you'd want to keep a majority stake, but you could probably crystalise £300m upfront...
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Generals Scaparrotti and Foch are and were supreme commanders of European forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
Voluntarily. That is the difference.
NATO mobilisation...voluntary? Don't think so.
Name a single aggressive war where our forces have been mobilised by NATO against our will. Just one will suffice.
I've stopped laying Gary Johnson @ ~300/1 after last night's convention antics.
The GOP has clearly not consolidated around trump.
Out of interest... does it not scare you a little to lay at such big odds? That's just such a lot of money to lose out on to win even 20 quid... even if it is really really unlikely.
Why would it scare him when he's backed him at 1000 ?
Ah okay- didn't realize that. I am intrigued though to find the people who do offer these enormously long odds...
You can manufacture a position where you can offer to lay candidates at 1000.0 by laying other candidates at shorter odds. Not sure if every 1000.0 layer is in this position though.
The simple fact is that every green (e.g. Pong's +£866k on Johnson) must be matched by equivalent reds elsewhere. But since most casual customers use Betfair to back, anyone having e.g. £500 on Trump or £2000 on Clinton creates a bit of that Johnson red.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
Yet it's enough to confuse you.
My point is and was that many on here have screamed blue murder at the thought of our armed forces being put under command of foreigners. Whereas not only has that happened in the past, but it is currently the case.
I don't think there would have been or will be an EU army but that is not the issue. People are worried about the sovereignty of our armed forces. But historically, and now if NATO mobilises (note @Philip_Thompson: it hasn't yet) we would have no such sovereign independence. And we are all happy with that.
You seem to be wilfully missing the points that have been made to you several times downthread.
He ignores points that don't agree with his world view.
We saw the same with his views on the City & Brexit.
It's hardly worth debating with him - his responses are usually "I'm right, you're wrong. You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying"
And with certain posters that is indeed the case.
We've already had @John_M opt out of debating with me. Next you, Charles?
This is a genuinely shocking miscarriage of justice - and, as the author argues, symptomatic of a political, policing and legal framework that doesn't understand what its job is. More Lord Woolfs, please.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
Yet it's enough to confuse you.
My point is and was that many on here have screamed blue murder at the thought of our armed forces being put under command of foreigners. Whereas not only has that happened in the past, but it is currently the case.
I don't think there would have been or will be an EU army but that is not the issue. People are worried about the sovereignty of our armed forces. But historically, and now if NATO mobilises (note @Philip_Thompson: it hasn't yet) we would have no such sovereign independence. And we are all happy with that.
You seem to be wilfully missing the points that have been made to you several times downthread.
He ignores points that don't agree with his world view.
We saw the same with his views on the City & Brexit.
It's hardly worth debating with him - his responses are usually "I'm right, you're wrong. You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying"
And with certain posters that is indeed the case.
We've already had @John_M opt out of debating with me. Next you, Charles?
(Don't) Bring it on.
It's just dull sparring with you. I come on here for entertainment and distraction.
You are willfully ignoring the difference between an EU army - as the EU has been clear it wants to create - and an alliance between independent states (which may commit us to collective action).
I don't know what point you're trying to prove, but it's boring.
This is not simply all about him trying to get others to pay more. If you go back to his writings in the 1980s and 1990s, a constant theme of his was that America shouldn't be the policeman for the world and that it shouldn't be responsible for the defence of - for example - Japan.
But if it were reality, we wouldn't have voted to Leave.
If it were not reality, we wouldn't have been able to vote to Leave.
I said *becoming* a country, not *has become* a country.
Yes but there is a discrete change between the two states that can't happen by accident or without anyone noticing. In the sense you mean it will always be *becoming* a country but never actually make it.
Again, it's a view. But if the British people had believed that, we wouldn't have voted to Leave.
There will be PB lurkers with more profitable books - people who are prepared to take on more exposure. I don't think I've exposed myself to a potential loss of more than £1k at any point though.
I'm actually not a particularly high-stakes gambler.
In process terms, it does all look very messy, with lots of moving parts and potential political traps. I can't help feeling that the financial markets and businesses are under-estimating the risks of it being an unholy mess.
Mr. Quidder, not only that, Scotland had a vote to leave the UK.
I'm all for Sindyref II, except it should be a condition that any area that doesn't vote 'Yes' is automatically considered English. We should never have signed the Treaty of York in the first place.
But if it were reality, we wouldn't have voted to Leave.
If it were not reality, we wouldn't have been able to vote to Leave.
I said *becoming* a country, not *has become* a country.
Yes but there is a discrete change between the two states that can't happen by accident or without anyone noticing. In the sense you mean it will always be *becoming* a country but never actually make it.
Again, it's a view. But if the British people had believed that, we wouldn't have voted to Leave.
That view isn't based on any substance. The wisdom of crowds doesn't depend on everyone having analysed the issues in technical detail and come to a conclusion. People vote for all sorts of reasons which are impossible to second guess.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I. a defensive alliance
I was doing no such thin. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
In response to a comment from EiT on the EU Army.
It is perfectly possible to have field commanders from an alliance structure and no one cares.
They're not field commanders. Genn forces (including us).
Yes, but we can elect not contribute troops or resources to any given mission
If NATO were mobilised, good luck with your opt out.
NATO's not a European army.
No it's not but it would represent our forces being under command of a foreign power and de facto foreign policy which people on here say they wouldn't countenance.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
Yet it's enough to confuse you.
My point is and was independence. And we are all happy with that.
You seem to be wilfully missing the points that have been made to you several times downthread.
First of all, we have voted to leave the EU so whether or not there is an EU army is a matter of detached interest. I don't happen to think there will be one. Go crazy, disagree.
Secondly, it is the principle that interests me. Brexiters shouted long and loud about the very thought of us placing our forces under the command of Johnny EU. Unconscionable, they said.
And yet, we do exactly the same thing to the US via NATO, whose supreme commander is American and, let's face it, whose foreign policy is that of the US.
So:
HMF under foreign powers I = bad. HMF under foreign power 2 = good.
I agree with Charles - it's pointless debating with you on this as you always come back to Brexiters = frothers on the EU/xenophobes, and fail to acknowledge any difference whatsoever between NATO and the EU.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
Yet it's enough to confuse you.
My point is and was that many on here have screamed blue murder at the thought of our armed forces being put under command of foreigners. Whereas not only has that happened in the past, but it is currently the case.
I don't think there would have been or will be an EU army but that is not the issue. People are worried about the sovereignty of our armed forces. But historically, and now if NATO mobilises (note @Philip_Thompson: it hasn't yet) we would have no such sovereign independence. And we are all happy with that.
You seem to be wilfully missing the points that have been made to you several times downthread.
He ignores points that don't agree with his world view.
We saw the same with his views on the City & Brexit.
It's hardly worth debating with him - his responses are usually "I'm right, you're wrong. You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying"
And with certain posters that is indeed the case.
We've already had @John_M opt out of debating with me. Next you, Charles?
(Don't) Bring it on.
It's just dull sparring with you. I come on here for entertainment and distraction.
You are willfully ignoring the difference between an EU army - as the EU has been clear it wants to create - and an alliance between independent states (which may commit us to collective action).
I don't know what point you're trying to prove, but it's boring.
As I have said previously, I don't think there would have been or will be an EU army. But of course we shall see. Perhaps there will be.
The point I am making is that we are under command of a foreign power today. So the argument that Brexiters make that it would be dreadful to be under command of a foreign power is illogical.
I wouldn't mind if they said: we are happy to be under command of the US but not under command of the EU.
Perfectly sensible position to take; I might take it myself. However, the argument was about sovereignty. Either you want sovereignty over our armed forces or you don't. We don't presently have it.
I really don't know how many different ways to say this.
If Trump wins and breaks NATO will the British join the EU Army?
In your dreams.
Donald Trump could presage the end of NATO. In that circumstance, I would (a) be fully understanding of our continental neighbours pooling their military forces; and (b) be supportive of a defensive alliance with the EU.
As would I.
Of course @Topping was implying that a defensive alliance is equivalent of being part of the EU army...but the irredentists do love their strawmen
I was doing no such thing; I was pointing out how everyone gets up in arms at the thought of HMF being under command of foreigners. When that is what they are currently. As of course were they in WW1. Of the French. Sacre Bleu.
This is missing the point, though. Eurosceptics don't oppose an EU army from xenophobia. They do so for political reasons.
I have no objection at all to a defensive alliance with our EU neighbours, or opting in to certain European military missions.
What I do object to is subsuming elements of our armed forces within the command of a federal union that has its own legal identity, global foreign policy and security objectives, and reports to its own foreign minister and President.
So would I. An EU army is never going to happen. My point is that in the past (WW1, WW2) and now (NATO) we have effectively placed our armed forces wholly under the command of foreign powers, and many have said, short of an EU army, that this is what they object to.
Press releases and documents from the EU over recent weeks make it clear that it will happen.
Not without the agreement of the member states.
In any case, the whole concept of an EU army (and presumably, navy and air force), is arse-about-face.
- Who directs it? - Who directs the policy it is created to enforce? - To whom is it accountable? - Who pays it?
and so on.
Armed forces are a primary - perhaps *the* primary - defining feature of a state because they are the ultimate reserve of force, as proven recently in Turkey. If you have armed forces then you have to have the government structures to direct and command them (and pay them, and so on). That can be done by committee, as the rebellious colonies did in 1757-83, but it doesn't work very well. By far the more effective answer is a single government with a single minister.
And the member states know this. Until they're happy to accept that kind of political structure, they won't accept a military structure that requires it.
Cruz, bitter? Yes. A dumb move. Similar to a person who Ioses a referendum and will not get over it.
Apparently Trump's remarks about his father were the last straw.
As for 2020, a lifetime away. So much depends on the scale of the GOP defeat - Trump could always try again if he loses narrowly. If it's a big loss, the GOP will be back to the drawing board and that presumably includes Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio not that I think his whole-hearted endorsement of Trump has done him any favours.
I'm also constantly being reminded by Fox News of the wealth of younger Republican leadership among Governors and in the House. Ryan will only be 50 in 2020 - if I were to put some of your money on the next GOP candidate, he'd be where I start.
I think it's a strong move...
Cruz can say I stood up for conservative values... while Marco kowtowed to liberal, pork-barrel spending, Godless Trump... got to be a reasonable chance Trump says something outrageous that the evangelicals/conservatives really hate in the election...
Surely Pence will do the religious stuff now? I'm detecting a lot of Can't Be Trump thinking on PB - just like he'd never be nominated, and Brexit wouldn't win.
The political kaleidoscope has been shaken again and again - and yet the status quo-ers are thinking it can't happen once more.
Be wary of conflating religious and right wing. The Tea Party and evangelical wings are not the same. I get the impression Pence is there to shore up the right who are suspicious that Trump is really a Democrat once you look beyond the wall stuff. (That said, for November it may be a distinction without a difference but it makes it easier to follow GOP primaries.)
But if it were reality, we wouldn't have voted to Leave.
If it were not reality, we wouldn't have been able to vote to Leave.
I said *becoming* a country, not *has become* a country.
Yes but there is a discrete change between the two states that can't happen by accident or without anyone noticing. In the sense you mean it will always be *becoming* a country but never actually make it.
Again, it's a view. But if the British people had believed that, we wouldn't have voted to Leave.
That view isn't based on any substance. The wisdom of crowds doesn't depend on everyone having analysed the issues in technical detail and come to a conclusion. People vote for all sorts of reasons which are impossible to second guess.
Given the narrowness of the Leave victory, pretty much any change in circumstances that favoured Remain would have flipped it to a Remain victory.
In process terms, it does all look very messy, with lots of moving parts and potential political traps. I can't help feeling that the financial markets and businesses are under-estimating the risks of it being an unholy mess.
Cruz's failure to endorse Trump beyond a token congratulation may harm a 2020 bid by him if Hillary wins in November but most Cruz supporters now back Trump so I doubt it makes much difference. By contrast next week Sanders will endorse Hillary but many of his supporters outside the convention will be vocal in their opposition to her.
Cruz also mentioned BREXIT in his speech as a sign of voters turning away from 'big government' showing the boost it has given the right in the US
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
Yet it's enough to confuse you.
My point is and was that many on here have screamed blue murder at the thought of our armed forces being put under command of foreigners. Whereas not only has that happened in the past, but it is currently the case.
I don't think there would have been or will be an EU army but that is not the issue. People are worried about the sovereignty of our armed forces. But historically, and now if NATO mobilises (note @Philip_Thompson: it hasn't yet) we would have no such sovereign independence. And we are all happy with that.
You seem to be wilfully missing the points that have been made to you several times downthread.
He ignores points that don't agree with his world view.
We saw the same with his views on the City & Brexit.
It's hardly worth debating with him - his responses are usually "I'm right, you're wrong. You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying"
And with certain posters that is indeed the case.
We've already had @John_M opt out of debating with me. Next you, Charles?
(Don't) Bring it on.
It's just dull sparring with you. I come on here for entertainment and distraction.
You are willfully ignoring the difference between an EU army - as the EU has been clear it wants to create - and an alliance between independent states (which may commit us to collective action).
I don't know what point you're trying to prove, but it's boring.
As I have said previously, I don't think there would have been or will be an EU army. But of course we shall see. Perhaps there will be.
The point I am making is that we are under command of a foreign power today. So the argument that Brexiters make that it would be dreadful to be under command of a foreign power is illogical.
I wouldn't mind if they said: we are happy to be under command of the US but not under command of the EU.
Perfectly sensible position to take; I might take it myself. However, the argument was about sovereignty. Either you want sovereignty over our armed forces or you don't. We don't presently have it.
I really don't know how many different ways to say this.
And the simple fact is that we are *not* under the command of a foreign power.
It really is that basic. You just have got it wrong.
This is not simply all about him trying to get others to pay more. If you go back to his writings in the 1980s and 1990s, a constant theme of his was that America shouldn't be the policeman for the world and that it shouldn't be responsible for the defence of - for example - Japan.
I completely agree with him. Britain has been too embroiled as well as their Mini-Me. The polling on an EU Army was horribly negative here compared to most of the rest of EU. We see it as a key facet of our national identity - others, not so much.
Mr. Pong, our definition of high stakes is wildly different.
Over the years since I started (2009) betting on F1 I've generally had positive results, but your minimum profit far exceeds the total sitting in both my accounts.
The Trump line about the Baltics is scary. These are liberal democracies that are members of NATO.
Cruz was right to do what he did. Brave, he knows it has cost him the advancement of his career, he doesn't care he just thinks Trump is a danger to the world and dangering those countries like that is unconservative.
Cruz's failure to endorse Trump beyond a token congratulation may harm a 2020 bid by him if Hillary wins in November but most Cruz supporters now back Trump so I doubt it makes much difference. By contrast next week Sanders will endorse Hillary but many of his supporters outside the convention will be vocal in their opposition to her.
It's an interesting test case.
Perhaps Sanders' endorsement of Hillary will disgust his supporters enough to prevent them from doing likewise and holding their noses to vote for her. Trump is clearly pitching for them.
There will be PB lurkers with more profitable books - people who are prepared to take on more exposure. I don't think I've exposed myself to a potential loss of more than £1k at any point though.
I'm actually not a particularly high-stakes gambler.
When you bet 2.2k on Gary Johnson... how did you cover that?
Yes, good article. I think item 3 might be the key error, from which many of the others flow. Of course, at the time of committing to the referendum, it wouldn't have been obvious.
Cruz's failure to endorse Trump beyond a token congratulation may harm a 2020 bid by him if Hillary wins in November but most Cruz supporters now back Trump so I doubt it makes much difference. By contrast next week Sanders will endorse Hillary but many of his supporters outside the convention will be vocal in their opposition to her.
It's an interesting test case.
Perhaps Sanders' endorsement of Hillary will disgust his supporters enough to prevent them from doing likewise and holding their noses to vote for her. Trump is clearly pitching for them.
They won't go for Trump but some may go for Jill Stein. Trump's problem is not Cruz voters but Jeb Bush, Kasich and Rubio voters, some of whom may go for Gary Johnson
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
Yet it's enoueign independence. And we are all happy with that.
You seem to be wilfully missing the points that have been made to you several times downthread.
He ignores points that don't agree with his world view.
We saw the same with his views on the City & Brexit.
It's hardly worth debating with him - his responses are usually "I'm right, you're wrong. You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying"
And with certain posters that is indeed the case.
We've already had @John_M opt out of debating with me. Next you, Charles?
(Don't) Bring it on.
It's just dull sparring with you. I come on here for entertainment and distraction.
You are willfully ignoring the difference between an EU army - as the EU has been clear it wants to create - and an alliance between independent states (which may commit us to collective action).
I don't know what point you're trying to prove, but it's boring.
As I have said previously, I don't think there would have been or will be an EU army. But of course we shall see. Perhaps there will be.
The point I am making is that we are under command of a foreign power today. So the argument that Brexiters make that it would be dreadful to be under command of a foreign power is illogical.
I wouldn't mind if they said: we are happy to be under command of the US but not under command of the EU.
Perfectly sensible position to take; I might take it myself. However, the argument was about sovereignty. Either you want sovereignty over our armed forces or you don't. We don't presently have it.
I really don't know how many different ways to say this.
And the simple fact is that we are *not* under the command of a foreign power.
It really is that basic. You just have got it wrong.
Just because you say so, it doesn't make it true, luckily.
We are members of NATO (you know, that voluntary treaty organisation).
The head of NATO is an American.
We would therefore be under command of the US when it comes to a NATO mobilisation.
The Trump line about the Baltics is scary. These are liberal democracies that are members of NATO.
Cruz was right to do what he did. Brave, he knows it has cost him the advancement of his career, he doesn't care he just thinks Trump is a danger to the world and dangering those countries like that is unconservative.
Stripping it of the personalities.
Foreign statesman refuses to guarantee an armed response under treaty obligations on the basis that the vast majority of other signatories have serially failed to meet their obligations.
If anything it's a lesson that, when you sign a treaty, you'd better honour your commitments. This is especially true when you are relying on one other signatory so heavily.
There will be PB lurkers with more profitable books - people who are prepared to take on more exposure. I don't think I've exposed myself to a potential loss of more than £1k at any point though.
I'm actually not a particularly high-stakes gambler.
When you bet 2.2k on Gary Johnson... how did you cover that?
Just before the Lib convention, IIRC, my book was ~ +£8.5k across all outcomes.
That changed to; +£2.2m Gary Johnson +£6.3k Everyone else
Because my book was all green I didn't have any additional exposure and didn't need any cash in my betfair account.
This is not simply all about him trying to get others to pay more. If you go back to his writings in the 1980s and 1990s, a constant theme of his was that America shouldn't be the policeman for the world and that it shouldn't be responsible for the defence of - for example - Japan.
I completely agree with him. Britain has been too embroiled as well as their Mini-Me. The polling on an EU Army was horribly negative here compared to most of the rest of EU. We see it as a key facet of our national identity - others, not so much.
The problem is this. Let's say America does step back; not just from Middle Eastern adventures but from its NATO, Japanese, Korean, etc. agreements.
This would in all likelihood destabalise the world. Would China attempt to forcible reunite with Taiwan? Would Russia attempt to take back the Baltics?
By guaranteeing these countries now, the US wins because its guarantee ensures that they are not attacked. Now, sure, maybe the cost should be more equitably spread: but don't forget that America gets a massive market for its products and gets huge geopolitical influence.
A more isolationist America in the 2010s, just like the isolationist America in the 1930s, encourages the militarily adventurous. (And the militarily adventurous are not liberal democracies.)
Cruz's failure to endorse Trump beyond a token congratulation may harm a 2020 bid by him if Hillary wins in November but most Cruz supporters now back Trump so I doubt it makes much difference. By contrast next week Sanders will endorse Hillary but many of his supporters outside the convention will be vocal in their opposition to her.
It's an interesting test case.
Perhaps Sanders' endorsement of Hillary will disgust his supporters enough to prevent them from doing likewise and holding their noses to vote for her. Trump is clearly pitching for them.
They won't go for Trump but some may go for Jill Stein. Trump's problem is not Cruz voters but Jeb Bush, Kasich and Rubio voters, some of whom may go for Gary Johnson
Is there any betting anywhere on highest 'other' vote or some such? Seems that Johnson and Stein between them will likely take more of the vote than any 3rd party candidate since Perot in 1992.
May's performance at PMQs has had a strangely good press.
The leaning over the dispatch box 'Remind you of anybodY/' looked liked gloating. She'd won the point already. The public forgives many things but gloatig sticks in the craw.
You saw gloating, others saw the punch line to a planned "joke". If the commentary from the people paid to watch and write about this stuff, is anywhere close to being accurate it was exceptionally effective
I didn't see gloating either. I do think the velociraptor analogy was very apt though. Poor Jezza was being absolutely annihilated. Because of the mis-match between May and Corbyn in ability and style, I could see that she could come across as being unduly pugnacious (there was a moment of that with Farron later, too) and too quick to have a go. That said, Thatcher dined out on having a go at everyone in the Commons for about 10 years.
It just goes to show. If TM hadn't been practicing that all morning into the mirror then I'm a banana. She still didn't deliver it "naturally". And yet such is the expectation that Jezza would come off worse in any exchange, it was hailed as a triumph.
I can also bet that she will have come away from that uber-planned joke thinking somewhere "that isn't me".
This is not simply all about him trying to get others to pay more. If you go back to his writings in the 1980s and 1990s, a constant theme of his was that America shouldn't be the policeman for the world and that it shouldn't be responsible for the defence of - for example - Japan.
I completely agree with him. Britain has been too embroiled as well as their Mini-Me. The polling on an EU Army was horribly negative here compared to most of the rest of EU. We see it as a key facet of our national identity - others, not so much.
The problem is this. Let's say America does step back; not just from Middle Eastern adventures but from its NATO, Japanese, Korean, etc. agreements.
This would in all likelihood destabalise the world. Would China attempt to forcible reunite with Taiwan? Would Russia attempt to take back the Baltics?
By guaranteeing these countries now, the US wins because its guarantee ensures that they are not attacked. Now, sure, maybe the cost should be more equitably spread: but don't forget that America gets a massive market for its products and gets huge geopolitical influence.
A more isolationist America in the 2010s, just like the isolationist America in the 1930s, encourages the militarily adventurous. (And the militarily adventurous are not liberal democracies.)
I agree - but allowing freeloaders to continue to take the piss isn't the answer either. Tough sabre rattling is required to wake them up.
This is not simply all about him trying to get others to pay more. If you go back to his writings in the 1980s and 1990s, a constant theme of his was that America shouldn't be the policeman for the world and that it shouldn't be responsible for the defence of - for example - Japan.
I completely agree with him. Britain has been too embroiled as well as their Mini-Me. The polling on an EU Army was horribly negative here compared to most of the rest of EU. We see it as a key facet of our national identity - others, not so much.
The problem is this. Let's say America does step back; not just from Middle Eastern adventures but from its NATO, Japanese, Korean, etc. agreements.
This would in all likelihood destabalise the world. Would China attempt to forcible reunite with Taiwan? Would Russia attempt to take back the Baltics?
By guaranteeing these countries now, the US wins because its guarantee ensures that they are not attacked. Now, sure, maybe the cost should be more equitably spread: but don't forget that America gets a massive market for its products and gets huge geopolitical influence.
A more isolationist America in the 2010s, just like the isolationist America in the 1930s, encourages the militarily adventurous. (And the militarily adventurous are not liberal democracies.)
The world managed for centuries before the advent of US power as the defining factor in geopolitics.
If you really believe in the Hannanite view that liberal democracies looking after their own affairs are the best basis for a free and prosperous world you can hardly begrudge the US looking to its national interest first before a nebulous notion of the greater good.
Cruz's failure to endorse Trump beyond a token congratulation may harm a 2020 bid by him if Hillary wins in November but most Cruz supporters now back Trump so I doubt it makes much difference. By contrast next week Sanders will endorse Hillary but many of his supporters outside the convention will be vocal in their opposition to her.
It's an interesting test case.
Perhaps Sanders' endorsement of Hillary will disgust his supporters enough to prevent them from doing likewise and holding their noses to vote for her. Trump is clearly pitching for them.
They won't go for Trump but some may go for Jill Stein. Trump's problem is not Cruz voters but Jeb Bush, Kasich and Rubio voters, some of whom may go for Gary Johnson
Is there any betting anywhere on highest 'other' vote or some such? Seems that Johnson and Stein between them will likely take more of the vote than any 3rd party candidate since Perot in 1992.
Highly likely both combined get over 10%, the highest third party voteshare since Perot 1992
Would anyone care to hazard an educated guess on how the 183k 25 quidders who registered to vote in the Labour leadership election will break pro and anti Corbyn?
My guess is that there are very few amongst those prepared to pay £25 in order to register a for a vote at this late stage who are waverers and likely to be won over by either side.
I am just trying to do the maths from a betting perspective to see what sort of volume of existing members Smith has to win over from the starting position of the last YouGov poll, taking into account the fact that those 183k additional votes are likely to stay put.
And the simple fact is that we are *not* under the command of a foreign power.
It really is that basic. You just have got it wrong.
Suppose Russian conventional forces roll into Poland. Could we opt out of the response? And once mobilised who would command our forces?
Yes we could opt out of any military response. See the actual wording of Article 5 of the NATO treaty helpfully posted up-thread.
As to who would command, our forces would if committed be under the direction of the NATO integrated command structure, which is well documented if you care to look it up. However, as per the ETO in 1944/45, and the Western Front late in WW1, the UK would always have a veto - i.e. if we thought our troops were being committed to an operation not in our national interest we could pull them out of it. When NATO has committed to operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan, not every country joined in and of those that did some set restrictions on how their forces would be used.
The Trump line about the Baltics is scary. These are liberal democracies that are members of NATO.
Cruz was right to do what he did. Brave, he knows it has cost him the advancement of his career, he doesn't care he just thinks Trump is a danger to the world and dangering those countries like that is unconservative.
Trump in an NYT interview this week has refused to back the Baltics against Putin and commended Erdogan on quashing the Turkish coup, his presidency really would be 'America first'
According to a LD staffer - they hoped to show him in a light-hearted way and hoped it'd go viral. That was a lucky escape. I honestly can't get my head around some of these *ideas*. The EdStone still wins hands down.
As a member of that Party, I can honestly and truthfully say I really don't care. Compared with £9 million of taxpayers' money wasted on pro-REMAIN propaganda, a paltry £8k of Party funds on a video is nothing.
On to more serious matters and it seems Mr Cruz decided revenge is a dish best served cold. I doubt it'll make much difference - if a Republican member doesn't want to vote for Trump, they can either stay at home along with 40% or more of the US electorate or vote HRC.
It's back to this loyalty thing - my Party, right or wrong. Whether it's the Corbyn supporters or the Conservatives who swiftly and shamelessly switch their allegiance from one leader to another just as easily as changing a pair of socks, it's all pretty much the same. Is it simply all about winning and having the power or is there more to it ?
I do think that Cruz has damaged his chances of being the candidate in 2020.
If he hadn't wanted to endorse Trump then he could have turned down a speaking slot. To stand up at the nominating convention and come up with some mealy-mouthed cr@p just demonstrates his lack of judgement
Cruz, bitter? Yes. A dumb move. Similar to a person who Ioses a referendum and will not get over it.
For god's sake the referendum wasn't a cricket match where everyone shakes hands at the end and says "well done old chap". I believe that the direction of the country was radically altered on the basis of a pack of lies about stopping immigration in the full knowledge that it will never happen.
If that proves to be the case you will not get everyone uniting behind Brexit Britain if half the country thinks the vote was won by an almighty fraud. And that's before you even start on all those Leave voters who are also going to believe they were conned.
Comments
The political kaleidoscope has been shaken again and again - and yet the status quo-ers are thinking it can't happen once more.
NATO is an alliance, that we can choose to repudiate (or not participate in a specific action) if we so choose. Of course those choices have consequences.
That is very different to an EU Army and an EU foreign policy that directs it.
Stop eliding stuff that is just different. It isn't big and it isn't clever.
So someone was on the other side of that? Was it Betfair or a bookie...
you would have won... 2 million pounds?
I didn't think Brexit would happen until the very end.
I still think the demographics in the general are just so tough for him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36853932
Obviously nothing to do with them having nothing to cheer for.
I find getting to the end of a long PB thread header tricky. Some fellow PBers have an enormous capacity for detail that deserted me years ago.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/marketactivity?id=1.107373419&selectionId=4182424
The RAF is short of about 3-4 front line squadrons. We don't have enough maritime survelliance or transport yet but are addressing it. Chinook fleet is about right.
We don't really have an army, just a milita. Army 2020 was right about moving to highly flexible brigades but, if we're serious, that needs to reexpand now by at least 15,000 regulars. I'd focus on armoured and mobile infantry for now rather than heavy artillery/tanks.
Special forces are about right.
But if it were reality, we wouldn't have voted to Leave.
Obama benefited from shed loads of DNVers who did - I'm not convinced that they're turning out for HRC instead.
Can Trump do the opposite for the disenfranchised whites? I'm very chary about trusting any of the analysts. Most lean Left - as they do it in UK - and there's been a lot of confirmation bias.
My point is and was that many on here have screamed blue murder at the thought of our armed forces being put under command of foreigners. Whereas not only has that happened in the past, but it is currently the case.
I don't think there would have been or will be an EU army but that is not the issue. People are worried about the sovereignty of our armed forces. But historically, and now if NATO mobilises (note @Philip_Thompson: it hasn't yet) we would have no such sovereign independence. And we are all happy with that.
Everyone else +10k
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ."
Article 5 in all its wordy, ambiguous, loophole-ly glory. This is 1949 folks, when armed attack meant 8th Guards Army rolling through the Fulda Gap. Warfare has become rather more nuanced in the 21st century.
May be you should look at IPO'ing that staffing business. At £350m of revenues you'd probably make around £70m in profits so it would be around in the order of £600-700m. Of course you'd want to keep a majority stake, but you could probably crystalise £300m upfront...
https://t.co/cuO0qB8xby https://t.co/lyXdfpZwXg
But I wanted to be rid of most of my position by the time the conventions came around and have had to lay at whatever odds the market would offer.
We saw the same with his views on the City & Brexit.
It's hardly worth debating with him - his responses are usually "I'm right, you're wrong. You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying"
Secondly, it is the principle that interests me. Brexiters shouted long and loud about the very thought of us placing our forces under the command of Johnny EU. Unconscionable, they said.
And yet, we do exactly the same thing to the US via NATO, whose supreme commander is American and, let's face it, whose foreign policy is that of the US.
So:
HMF under foreign powers I = bad.
HMF under foreign power 2 = good.
(speaking of which, where is @alanbrooke)
We've already had @John_M opt out of debating with me. Next you, Charles?
(Don't) Bring it on.
http://barristerblogger.com/2016/07/21/shocking-case-david-bryant-reveals-fallacy-can-always-spot-liar/
You are willfully ignoring the difference between an EU army - as the EU has been clear it wants to create - and an alliance between independent states (which may commit us to collective action).
I don't know what point you're trying to prove, but it's boring.
This is not simply all about him trying to get others to pay more. If you go back to his writings in the 1980s and 1990s, a constant theme of his was that America shouldn't be the policeman for the world and that it shouldn't be responsible for the defence of - for example - Japan.
There will be PB lurkers with more profitable books - people who are prepared to take on more exposure. I don't think I've exposed myself to a potential loss of more than £1k at any point though.
I'm actually not a particularly high-stakes gambler.
http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2016/7/21/article-50-the-brexit-divorce-paper
In process terms, it does all look very messy, with lots of moving parts and potential political traps. I can't help feeling that the financial markets and businesses are under-estimating the risks of it being an unholy mess.
But hey ho, let's move on.
The point I am making is that we are under command of a foreign power today. So the argument that Brexiters make that it would be dreadful to be under command of a foreign power is illogical.
I wouldn't mind if they said: we are happy to be under command of the US but not under command of the EU.
Perfectly sensible position to take; I might take it myself. However, the argument was about sovereignty. Either you want sovereignty over our armed forces or you don't. We don't presently have it.
I really don't know how many different ways to say this.
In any case, the whole concept of an EU army (and presumably, navy and air force), is arse-about-face.
- Who directs it?
- Who directs the policy it is created to enforce?
- To whom is it accountable?
- Who pays it?
and so on.
Armed forces are a primary - perhaps *the* primary - defining feature of a state because they are the ultimate reserve of force, as proven recently in Turkey. If you have armed forces then you have to have the government structures to direct and command them (and pay them, and so on). That can be done by committee, as the rebellious colonies did in 1757-83, but it doesn't work very well. By far the more effective answer is a single government with a single minister.
And the member states know this. Until they're happy to accept that kind of political structure, they won't accept a military structure that requires it.
The teleprompter is defo helping his delivery - he's been practising hard at this.
https://www.opencanada.org/features/brexit-post-mortem-17-takeaways-fallen-david-cameron/
Cruz also mentioned BREXIT in his speech as a sign of voters turning away from 'big government' showing the boost it has given the right in the US
It really is that basic. You just have got it wrong.
Over the years since I started (2009) betting on F1 I've generally had positive results, but your minimum profit far exceeds the total sitting in both my accounts.
"The EU is the biggest concern for the British, according to the new Ipsos MORI issues index … "
Perhaps Sanders' endorsement of Hillary will disgust his supporters enough to prevent them from doing likewise and holding their noses to vote for her. Trump is clearly pitching for them.
There was a jenny freeman on bbc world service early sunday morning. Coincidence?
She has a degree in Third World studies.
If this was said by someone with less baggage, it'd be entirely acceptable.
We are members of NATO (you know, that voluntary treaty organisation).
The head of NATO is an American.
We would therefore be under command of the US when it comes to a NATO mobilisation.
Just as we were with Foch/France in WWI.
Foreign statesman refuses to guarantee an armed response under treaty obligations on the basis that the vast majority of other signatories have serially failed to meet their obligations.
If anything it's a lesson that, when you sign a treaty, you'd better honour your commitments. This is especially true when you are relying on one other signatory so heavily.
@paulwaugh: Early days but I'm told sampling of 183k registered supporters so far showing btwn 60%/40% and 64/35 split for anti JC/pro JC views
That changed to;
+£2.2m Gary Johnson
+£6.3k Everyone else
Because my book was all green I didn't have any additional exposure and didn't need any cash in my betfair account.
This would in all likelihood destabalise the world. Would China attempt to forcible reunite with Taiwan? Would Russia attempt to take back the Baltics?
By guaranteeing these countries now, the US wins because its guarantee ensures that they are not attacked. Now, sure, maybe the cost should be more equitably spread: but don't forget that America gets a massive market for its products and gets huge geopolitical influence.
A more isolationist America in the 2010s, just like the isolationist America in the 1930s, encourages the militarily adventurous. (And the militarily adventurous are not liberal democracies.)
https://twitter.com/easypoliticsUK/status/756064910958858240
If you really believe in the Hannanite view that liberal democracies looking after their own affairs are the best basis for a free and prosperous world you can hardly begrudge the US looking to its national interest first before a nebulous notion of the greater good.
My guess is that there are very few amongst those prepared to pay £25 in order to register a for a vote at this late stage who are waverers and likely to be won over by either side.
I am just trying to do the maths from a betting perspective to see what sort of volume of existing members Smith has to win over from the starting position of the last YouGov poll, taking into account the fact that those 183k additional votes are likely to stay put.
As to who would command, our forces would if committed be under the direction of the NATO integrated command structure, which is well documented if you care to look it up. However, as per the ETO in 1944/45, and the Western Front late in WW1, the UK would always have a veto - i.e. if we thought our troops were being committed to an operation not in our national interest we could pull them out of it. When NATO has committed to operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan, not every country joined in and of those that did some set restrictions on how their forces would be used.
If that proves to be the case you will not get everyone uniting behind Brexit Britain if half the country thinks the vote was won by an almighty fraud. And that's before you even start on all those Leave voters who are also going to believe they were conned.