Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
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.
Partition has such a good record in British colonial history.
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.
But for liberal democracies to prosper, there has to be a Pax Somenationana. Without a dominant power(s) maintaining the World Order, everyone's prosperity is at risk.
For the moment, the only viable option is Pax Americana.
If Trump and Le Pen win then the UK under May would be the last bastion of liberal democracy amongst the permanent members of the Security Council and even she is more authoritarian than Cameron was
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.
Just as we were with Foch/France in WWI.
Can you do stuff that doesn't involve blocks, colours and beeps?
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.
But for liberal democracies to prosper, there has to be a Pax Somenationana. Without a dominant power(s) maintaining the World Order, everyone's prosperity is at risk.
For the moment, the only viable option is Pax Americana.
Maybe undermining the nascent alternative on the other side of the Atlantic wasn't such a good idea?
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?
We could if we wanted to.
I suspect we would choose not to.
Once mobilised it would be however the alliance chose to lead the combined forces but that's irrelevant. It's the political decision to commit forces that matters, not the general in charge (presumably SACEUR would take personal control in this scenario)
Corbyn has improved but he has the same issue that Miliband had of focusing on niche issues. None of his 5 things are anywhere near the top of the Ipsos issues list.
If Trump and Le Pen win then the UK under May would be the last bastion of liberal democracy amongst the permanent members of the Security Council and even she is more authoritarian than Cameron was
While not being convinced myself, there is a reasonable argument to be made that liberal democracy is on its last legs. The future being Russian style psuedo-democracy.
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.
Other way round imo. Cruz has his eye on 2020 and is distancing himself from what he fears will be the 2016 Trump trainwreck and a landslide for Hillary.
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.
As you say, NATO cannot be mobilised. Or rather, it cannot be mobilised now. In the late 50s, if the Sovs + Warsaw Pact forces kicked off, we'd have all been balls-deep into it, I'm sure.
Sooner or later, the treaty will have to be amended. It's not fit for purpose.
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.
Really? Point 17's airy and [very probably] false assertion - "You delivered a majority to your party, one it would not win today" - doesn't inspire much confidence in the capacity of the author to understand British politics.
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.
Just as we were with Foch/France in WWI.
And as @Casino and I have repeated said the command on the ground *does not matter*
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
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.
But for liberal democracies to prosper, there has to be a Pax Somenationana. Without a dominant power(s) maintaining the World Order, everyone's prosperity is at risk.
For the moment, the only viable option is Pax Americana.
Maybe undermining the nascent alternative on the other side of the Atlantic wasn't such a good idea?
But but but, they wanted a European military. How terrible it would be if Britain's modest little navy of non-functional and non-utilitarian ships were merged into a properly funded and properly run European Navy!
It won't be a classic military invasion. It will be what Putin has mastered elsewhere. Does Article 5 cover rioting Russophones ? Then if the riots start burning property ? Then low grade terrorism ? The high grade terrorism against Baltic state forces ? Does Article 5 cover internal dissent ? Then elected committees of rioters declare autonomy and humanitarian aid conveys of " Patriots " start crossing the Russian Border. And all during the months this is unfolding Trump is saying. " Of course I stand by article 5 but it doesn't apply here. " Then he flies to Moscow to mediate and comes back with a trade deal. It will be a black comedy version of the Jim Hacker " Button? " scene.
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.
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.
Really? Point 17's airy and [very probably] false assertion - "You delivered a majority to your party, one it would not win today" - doesn't inspire much confidence in the capacity of the author to understand British politics.
I didn't really understand what that was about, TBH, and some of the points should be addressed to the Brexiteers, not Cameron. But he makes some fair points as well.
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.
But for liberal democracies to prosper, there has to be a Pax Somenationana. Without a dominant power(s) maintaining the World Order, everyone's prosperity is at risk.
For the moment, the only viable option is Pax Americana.
Maybe undermining the nascent alternative on the other side of the Atlantic wasn't such a good idea?
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
The state of the UK's military is by far the best argument for a combined European armed forces.
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.
Wow. That's phenomenal success given a potential loss of 1k at any one time. You should go professional!
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.
The UK was the power broker before the US.
It does make you wonder how the end of the Pax Americana will go.
The end of the Pax Britannica was certainly not a good period for humanity.
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.
But for liberal democracies to prosper, there has to be a Pax Somenationana. Without a dominant power(s) maintaining the World Order, everyone's prosperity is at risk.
For the moment, the only viable option is Pax Americana.
America was wealthier in the 1950s through the 2000s, because its actions ensured there were lots of liberal democracies to sell products to.
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.
All the Referendum proved is that anyone who believes a politician is an idiot...indeed a imbecile.
After all, it's not as if it's new for politicians to lie so anyone - but ANYONE - who believes what they say unthinkingly - is a proven grade one fool or totally naive.
Good job it isn't the same slogan as a site that talks of Jews in a negative way...oh wait icke has had some very controversial things to say about them in the past!
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.
Really? Point 17's airy and [very probably] false assertion - "You delivered a majority to your party, one it would not win today" - doesn't inspire much confidence in the capacity of the author to understand British politics.
I didn't really understand what that was about, TBH, and some of the points should be addressed to the Brexiteers, not Cameron. But he makes some fair points as well.
It's the nature of these articles that they're sometimes a swing and a miss. It's just interesting to get a non-European perspective on EUref. It was a mixture of good/weak points. As a polemic, its not bad, in the round.
America was wealthier in the 1950s through the 2000s, because its actions ensured there were lots of liberal democracies to sell products to.
China will send them a thank you note for maintaining the customer base and money supply to allow them to reclaim their rightful place as the central kingdom of the world.
But for liberal democracies to prosper, there has to be a Pax Somenationana. Without a dominant power(s) maintaining the World Order, everyone's prosperity is at risk.
For the moment, the only viable option is Pax Americana.
America was wealthier in the 1950s through the 2000s, because its actions ensured there were lots of liberal democracies to sell products to.
Prevention is cheaper than cure.
Are you sure they made their wealth from selling to liberal democracies they maintained and not from creating and maintaining despotic dictatorships which were very keen on keeping their US masters happy by providing under-cost resources and purchasing lots and lots of military hardware?
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.
I guess I'm talking relative to the market makers and those who take on very large exposures (>£100k).
I feel like a bit of a dick willy waving about my profit though - that wasn't my intention. I was giving a heads up to those wanting to back Gary Johnson that I was no longer willing to oppose him at current odds.
If no other serious layer steps up, then his odds are likely to come in.
BTW, IIRC, 98% of punters are long term net losers. If you're making an overall profit, you're doing something right!
It appears to be the first year on year fall in the debt ratio in the 14 years ONS list in their latest bulletin.
W00t!
Government debt-to-GDP is now falling in (comparing recent peak to current): Spain (from 100.2% to 99.2%) Germany (from 81% to 71.2%) Portugal (from 132.8% to 129.0%) Italy (from 136.0% to 132.7%) The Netherlands (from 69.3% to 65.1%) Belgium (from 110.8% to 106.0%) France (from 98.0% to 96.1%) Ireland (from 125.2% to 93.8%)
Greek government debt to GDP is rising, and is 176.9% currently.
It won't be a classic military invasion. It will be what Putin has mastered elsewhere. Does Article 5 cover rioting Russophones ? Then if the riots start burning property ? Then low grade terrorism ? The high grade terrorism against Baltic state forces ? Does Article 5 cover internal dissent ? Then elected committees of rioters declare autonomy and humanitarian aid conveys of " Patriots " start crossing the Russian Border. And all during the months this is unfolding Trump is saying. " Of course I stand by article 5 but it doesn't apply here. " Then he flies to Moscow to mediate and comes back with a trade deal. It will be a black comedy version of the Jim Hacker " Button? " scene.
A real nightmare.
A very credible scenario.
Make no mistake: if Putin thought he could get away with 'recovering' the Baltic states, he would.
"The EU is the biggest concern for the British, according to the new Ipsos MORI issues index … "
Seems people do care about E.U issues since turnout was 72%, could it be people expressing a concern about immigration were also concerned about the ability to control free movement of people from the E.U? Hmmm now who could've seen that coming.....
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.
As you say, NATO cannot be mobilised. Or rather, it cannot be mobilised now. In the late 50s, if the Sovs + Warsaw Pact forces kicked off, we'd have all been balls-deep into it, I'm sure.
Sooner or later, the treaty will have to be amended. It's not fit for purpose.
I totally agree, Mr. M. NATO is, in my view, time expired and should have been consigned to history twenty years ago. The idea that the UK could meaningfully go into a major war is daft, never mind whether we would even want to do so in defence of Poland or Lithuania etc..
The political will to defend itself is just not there in Western Europe. FFS, Belgium would not even sell us artillery shells for Gulf War 1, what chance of Belgium (a NATO member) actually joining in a fight. NATO is dead in the water, the idea of a EU defence force is just a fantasy, but a dangerous one.
It appears to be the first year on year fall in the debt ratio in the 14 years ONS list in their latest bulletin.
W00t!
Government debt-to-GDP is now falling in (comparing recent peak to current): Spain (from 100.2% to 99.2%) Germany (from 81% to 71.2%) Portugal (from 132.8% to 129.0%) Italy (from 136.0% to 132.7%) The Netherlands (from 69.3% to 65.1%) Belgium (from 110.8% to 106.0%) France (from 98.0% to 96.1%) Ireland (from 125.2% to 93.8%)
Greek government debt to GDP is rising, and is 176.9% currently.
I swear to God that Ireland is run by leprechauns. They keep doing miraculous things. Either that or they've got the world's iffiest stats department.
If Trump and Le Pen win then the UK under May would be the last bastion of liberal democracy amongst the permanent members of the Security Council and even she is more authoritarian than Cameron was
While not being convinced myself, there is a reasonable argument to be made that liberal democracy is on its last legs. The future being Russian style psuedo-democracy.
Combined with nationalism, not impossible even if unlikely. City states may then breakaway as the last bastion of liberal democracy
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
It appears to be the first year on year fall in the debt ratio in the 14 years ONS list in their latest bulletin.
W00t!
Government debt-to-GDP is now falling in (comparing recent peak to current): Spain (from 100.2% to 99.2%) Germany (from 81% to 71.2%) Portugal (from 132.8% to 129.0%) Italy (from 136.0% to 132.7%) The Netherlands (from 69.3% to 65.1%) Belgium (from 110.8% to 106.0%) France (from 98.0% to 96.1%) Ireland (from 125.2% to 93.8%)
Greek government debt to GDP is rising, and is 176.9% currently.
I swear to God that Ireland is run by leprechauns. They keep doing miraculous things. Either that or they've got the world's iffiest stats department.
It's worth remembering that a lot of country's debt-to-GDP numbers went through the roof because they nationalised banks and/or created bad banks to buy toxic assets. In Ireland, all the banks were nationalised and the government created NAMA to buy bad loans. And in Spain, the government ended up owning a bunch of banks and did the same with SAREB.
As these are unwound, government debt-to-GDP comes down quite quickly. On my numbers, even assuming just modest GDP growth and no meaningful ordinary budget surplus, Ireland is back to 60% by 2020. Similarly, Spain should be down 80%.
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.
All the Referendum proved is that anyone who believes a politician is an idiot...indeed a imbecile.
After all, it's not as if it's new for politicians to lie so anyone - but ANYONE - who believes what they say unthinkingly - is a proven grade one fool or totally naive.
I don't disagree but it does not change the fact that Leave won by energising the anti-immigration vote in the full knowledge that it's promises won't be kept. If a government lies we can kick it out, when the Brexiters lied we are stuck with the consequences for the foreseeable future.
It appears to be the first year on year fall in the debt ratio in the 14 years ONS list in their latest bulletin.
W00t!
Government debt-to-GDP is now falling in (comparing recent peak to current): Spain (from 100.2% to 99.2%) Germany (from 81% to 71.2%) Portugal (from 132.8% to 129.0%) Italy (from 136.0% to 132.7%) The Netherlands (from 69.3% to 65.1%) Belgium (from 110.8% to 106.0%) France (from 98.0% to 96.1%) Ireland (from 125.2% to 93.8%)
Greek government debt to GDP is rising, and is 176.9% currently.
I swear to God that Ireland is run by leprechauns. They keep doing miraculous things. Either that or they've got the world's iffiest stats department.
It's worth remembering that a lot of country's debt-to-GDP numbers went through the roof because they nationalised banks and/or created bad banks to buy toxic assets. In Ireland, all the banks were nationalised and the government created NAMA to buy bad loans. And in Spain, the government ended up owning a bunch of banks and did the same with SAREB.
As these are unwound, government debt-to-GDP comes down quite quickly. On my numbers, even assuming just modest GDP growth and no meaningful ordinary budget surplus, Ireland is back to 60% by 2020. Similarly, Spain should be down 80%.
In that case we should surely be looking at PSNB over here instead of PSNBex. The underlying position of many of these nations is still not great. Portugal and Italy strike me as the largest beneficiaries of ECB largesse.
It appears to be the first year on year fall in the debt ratio in the 14 years ONS list in their latest bulletin.
W00t!
Government debt-to-GDP is now falling in (comparing recent peak to current): Spain (from 100.2% to 99.2%) Germany (from 81% to 71.2%) Portugal (from 132.8% to 129.0%) Italy (from 136.0% to 132.7%) The Netherlands (from 69.3% to 65.1%) Belgium (from 110.8% to 106.0%) France (from 98.0% to 96.1%) Ireland (from 125.2% to 93.8%)
Greek government debt to GDP is rising, and is 176.9% currently.
I swear to God that Ireland is run by leprechauns. They keep doing miraculous things. Either that or they've got the world's iffiest stats department.
What I don't understand about Trump's comments is that they cede the initiative to Clinton. It is surely a Presidential candidate's dream to speak up for the effectiveness of the US military, its proud record of service, its anchor role is the foremost alliance against world evil.
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 shamelessl
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.
All the Referendum proved is that anyone who believes a politician is an idiot...indeed a imbecile.
After all, it's not as if it's new for politicians to lie so anyone - but ANYONE - who believes what they say unthinkingly - is a proven grade one fool or totally naive.
I don't disagree but it does not change the fact that Leave won by energising the anti-immigration vote in the full knowledge that it's promises won't be kept. If a government lies we can kick it out, when the Brexiters lied we are stuck with the consequences for the foreseeable future.
There's a fantastic irony in your final sentence there, which you will no doubt fail to see.
It appears to be the first year on year fall in the debt ratio in the 14 years ONS list in their latest bulletin.
W00t!
Government debt-to-GDP is now falling in (comparing recent peak to current): Spain (from 100.2% to 99.2%) Germany (from 81% to 71.2%) Portugal (from 132.8% to 129.0%) Italy (from 136.0% to 132.7%) The Netherlands (from 69.3% to 65.1%) Belgium (from 110.8% to 106.0%) France (from 98.0% to 96.1%) Ireland (from 125.2% to 93.8%)
Greek government debt to GDP is rising, and is 176.9% currently.
I swear to God that Ireland is run by leprechauns. They keep doing miraculous things. Either that or they've got the world's iffiest stats department.
It's worth remembering that a lot of country's debt-to-GDP numbers went through the roof because they nationalised banks and/or created bad banks to buy toxic assets. In Ireland, all the banks were nationalised and the government created NAMA to buy bad loans. And in Spain, the government ended up owning a bunch of banks and did the same with SAREB.
As these are unwound, government debt-to-GDP comes down quite quickly. On my numbers, even assuming just modest GDP growth and no meaningful ordinary budget surplus, Ireland is back to 60% by 2020. Similarly, Spain should be down 80%.
In that case we should surely be looking at PSNB over here instead of PSNBex. The underlying position of many of these nations is still not great. Portugal and Italy strike me as the largest beneficiaries of ECB largesse.
Portugal and Italy are the ones I'd worry about too. There are appalling demographics in both countries.
That being said, Italy does have the advantage of minimal levels of personal debt (while Portugal has personal and corporate indebtedness issues). Italy also has a large, successful export industry, and a relatively well educated workforce (in the North). The question is whether Renzi is able to sort out Italy's incredibly inflexible labour market and labyrinthine legal system.
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
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.
All the Referendum proved is that anyone who believes a politician is an idiot...indeed a imbecile.
After all, it's not as if it's new for politicians to lie so anyone - but ANYONE - who believes what they say unthinkingly - is a proven grade one fool or totally naive.
I don't disagree but it does not change the fact that Leave won by energising the anti-immigration vote in the full knowledge that it's promises won't be kept. If a government lies we can kick it out, when the Brexiters lied we are stuck with the consequences for the foreseeable future.
I think it's likely that immigration to the UK will, following Brexit.
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.
I don't like this fad of describing the current era as "post factual". When have people ever been good at recognising facts?
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.
Really? Point 17's airy and [very probably] false assertion - "You delivered a majority to your party, one it would not win today" - doesn't inspire much confidence in the capacity of the author to understand British politics.
I didn't really understand what that was about, TBH, and some of the points should be addressed to the Brexiteers, not Cameron. But he makes some fair points as well.
Of course it wouldn't win that majority today. It'd win a far larger one.
How could he possibly enforce the equalisation of that? Some kind of national salary index that lists what you should pay for every profession when you are advertising a job? Really barmy stuff.
I moved my company from London to Bristol because staff are easier to find and wages are not so inflated. No one running a company like mine wants to pay over the odds in London, it is just what you have to do to fill the positions there.
If Trump and Le Pen win then the UK under May would be the last bastion of liberal democracy amongst the permanent members of the Security Council and even she is more authoritarian than Cameron was
While not being convinced myself, there is a reasonable argument to be made that liberal democracy is on its last legs. The future being Russian style psuedo-democracy.
Combined with nationalism, not impossible even if unlikely. City states may then breakaway as the last bastion of liberal democracy
Go on, Mr. Hyfud, develop that idea of city states further. Think through, perhaps, where and how they would exist in the 21st century. I should be particularly interested in why they would be liberal democracies.
If the same anti-politics sentiments that drove Brexit are driving the Trump phenomenon I'd say Cruz doing this is probably a net positive for The Donald.
That's mad. Officers in the US really need to start being prosecuted for this, this really isn't a confused De Menezes situation (tragic as that was) of officers trying to do their best. If the police officer who shot him isn't prosecuted then there'll be more Baton Rouge type incidents as the bad and the mad seek retribution.
If Trump and Le Pen win then the UK under May would be the last bastion of liberal democracy amongst the permanent members of the Security Council and even she is more authoritarian than Cameron was
While not being convinced myself, there is a reasonable argument to be made that liberal democracy is on its last legs. The future being Russian style psuedo-democracy.
Oh, absolutely. Democracy is, by its very nature, very disruptive. It relies on respecting the will of people who might vote you huge inconvenience through the ballot box that costs you dearly.
There are many people in the world who'd just be happy with stability, more money and a quiet life (China) or an enlightened international bureaucracy that pursues the ideals held by a consensus of elites in the West (EU)
Nowhere it is written in stone that liberal democracies will ultimately emerge worldwide to inherit the earth.
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.
I'm afraid you've missed the point.
We have voted to Leave.
Therefore we must and will Leave.
People who voted to Remain and lost now have two options: either argue for and work for the best possible Leave, or stand on the sidelines carping, moaning, and hoping that the country will suffer just so they can say "I told you so".
The fundamental objection to an EU army is that there is no point to it, except to give the EU the trappings of statehood.
Militarily it would be useless, leading to a proliferation in the number of brass hats.
Which is why there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of it happening. I really don't know what those who, apparently in all seriousness, go on about this are smoking. It's on a par with the risk of Turkey joining the EU in terms of being totally out with the fairies.
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
Anyone but England?
Not often we get an honest acknowledgment that the UK (in this case our armed forces) is de facto run by England. Kudos.
"The scene in Downing Street earlier, perhaps: an aide opened a briefcase, extracted a package and handled it gingerly. ‘This, Prime Minister,’ said the aide, ‘is something we have been working on for a while. Something you have not used before. It is A Joke, Prime Minister. You pull the pin and throw the Joke at the Opposition. Jokes can cause damage. They must be handled with care.’
People who voted to Remain and lost now have two options: either argue for and work for the best possible Leave, or stand on the sidelines carping, moaning, and hoping that the country will suffer just so they can say "I told you so".
Choose wisely.
--------------------------------
What we are going to get is a reboot of Project Fear, but this time it will only be EEA membership that can 'save' us from the killer bees, alien invasions and plagues of Egypt.
At least that's what the relatively intelligent Remainers are doing/going to do.
The brain dead will continue to haunt boards like this, wittering and whingeing.
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.
I don't like this fad of describing the current era as "post factual". When have people ever been good at recognising facts?
If Trump and Le Pen win then the UK under May would be the last bastion of liberal democracy amongst the permanent members of the Security Council and even she is more authoritarian than Cameron was
While not being convinced myself, there is a reasonable argument to be made that liberal democracy is on its last legs. The future being Russian style psuedo-democracy.
Oh, absolutely. Democracy is, by its very nature, very disruptive. It relies on respecting the will of people who might vote you huge inconvenience through the ballot box that costs you dearly.
There are many people in the world who'd just be happy with stability, more money and a quiet life (China) or an enlightened international bureaucracy that pursues the ideals held by a consensus of elites in the West (EU)
Nowhere it is written in stone that liberal democracies will ultimately emerge worldwide to inherit the earth.
I am quite sure, Mr. Royale, that historians of the future will look back on the period of universal franchise democracy with the same mystification as most people now look at the 14th century.
How could he possibly enforce the equalisation of that? Some kind of national salary index that lists what you should pay for every profession when you are advertising a job? Really barmy stuff.
I moved my company from London to Bristol because staff are easier to find and wages are not so inflated. No one running a company like mine wants to pay over the odds in London, it is just what you have to do to fill the positions there.
I suspect that, just as many here can't recall the pre-EEC days, many also don't remember how socialist & interventionist Britain used to be. Prices and income controls were part of that.
The fundamental objection to an EU army is that there is no point to it, except to give the EU the trappings of statehood.
Militarily it would be useless, leading to a proliferation in the number of brass hats.
Which is why there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of it happening. I really don't know what those who, apparently in all seriousness, go on about this are smoking. It's on a par with the risk of Turkey joining the EU in terms of being totally out with the fairies.
Like The Times who made it a front page story before the referendum?
If I had a pound for every time a 'phile (and it almost always is a 'phile) promised some new EU integration measure would never happen, before it actually did happen, I'd be a very rich man.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago 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
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
Anyone but England?
Not often we get an honest acknowledgment that the UK (in this case our armed forces) is de facto run by England. Kudos.
Not often that we get a confession that Scottish nationalism is largely driven by a huge inferiority complex to England as well, made worse by the fact Scotland has done very well out of it.
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.
As you say, NATO cannot be mobilised. Or rather, it cannot be mobilised now. In the late 50s, if the Sovs + Warsaw Pact forces kicked off, we'd have all been balls-deep into it, I'm sure.
Sooner or later, the treaty will have to be amended. It's not fit for purpose.
Nato is just a talking shop and some jolly overseas assignments on expenses for many of the toff officers.
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.
I don't like this fad of describing the current era as "post factual". When have people ever been good at recognising facts?
It's just a partisan whinge
Post-truth, post-fact, any of the -phobias are all rhetorical flourishes implying that your opponent is an emotionally driven, irrational cretin. We're just being more elliptical about our insults.
How could he possibly enforce the equalisation of that? Some kind of national salary index that lists what you should pay for every profession when you are advertising a job? Really barmy stuff.
I moved my company from London to Bristol because staff are easier to find and wages are not so inflated. No one running a company like mine wants to pay over the odds in London, it is just what you have to do to fill the positions there.
I suspect that, just as many here can't recall the pre-EEC days, many also don't remember how socialist & interventionist Britain used to be. Prices and income controls were part of that.
He's probably been mis-reported. If not, I doubt you'd have to pay London wages for Bristol people, rather t'other way round.
Bizarre. There is an obvious reason people is (say) London get more. Housing costs. Our four bed (really a three bed, but anyway) costs us £26,400/annum, which is more than the average post-tax wage nationally.
How could he possibly enforce the equalisation of that? Some kind of national salary index that lists what you should pay for every profession when you are advertising a job? Really barmy stuff.
I moved my company from London to Bristol because staff are easier to find and wages are not so inflated. No one running a company like mine wants to pay over the odds in London, it is just what you have to do to fill the positions there.
I suspect that, just as many here can't recall the pre-EEC days, many also don't remember how socialist & interventionist Britain used to be. Prices and income controls were part of that.
He's probably been mis-reported. If not, I doubt you'd have to pay London wages for Bristol people, rather t'other way round.
I heard him say it - he's talking Soviet stuff. It made me think WTF, but it was more making a point about the North being held down/suffering compared to London.
If Trump and Le Pen win then the UK under May would be the last bastion of liberal democracy amongst the permanent members of the Security Council and even she is more authoritarian than Cameron was
While not being convinced myself, there is a reasonable argument to be made that liberal democracy is on its last legs. The future being Russian style psuedo-democracy.
Oh, absolutely. Democracy is, by its very nature, very disruptive. It relies on respecting the will of people who might vote you huge inconvenience through the ballot box that costs you dearly.
There are many people in the world who'd just be happy with stability, more money and a quiet life (China) or an enlightened international bureaucracy that pursues the ideals held by a consensus of elites in the West (EU)
Nowhere it is written in stone that liberal democracies will ultimately emerge worldwide to inherit the earth.
I am quite sure, Mr. Royale, that historians of the future will look back on the period of universal franchise democracy with the same mystification as most people now look at the 14th century.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago 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
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago 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
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago 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
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
When my son was small we used to holiday on the Isle of Wight and the high points of the trip were always the Garlic Festival and the Jousting at Carisbrooke Castle. There is something about the Joust (whether it is the raw courage needed, the horsemanship, maybe the teamwork between horse and rider or something else, I don't know) that makes it uniquely exciting. When the crowd really joins in and you get the boom-boom-pause-clash handclap, it really does send shivers down ones spine. Better even than paying rugger.
People who voted to Remain and lost now have two options: either argue for and work for the best possible Leave, or stand on the sidelines carping, moaning, and hoping that the country will suffer just so they can say "I told you so".
Choose wisely.
--------------------------------
What we are going to get is a reboot of Project Fear, but this time it will only be EEA membership that can 'save' us from the killer bees, alien invasions and plagues of Egypt.
At least that's what the relatively intelligent Remainers are doing/going to do.
The brain dead will continue to haunt boards like this, wittering and whingeing.
Except that on this matter the remainers are right.
We can look again at EEA in 10/20 years time if by then the UK / EU trade is too little to justify the fees/movement, but to leave now would be too much too soon.
Of course if I was Davis I woudn't say that as I would be looking at the best movement restrictions/EEA membership fee ratio possible.
Us leaving EEA would also impact the EU badly so that is a bargaining chip.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1h1 hour ago 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
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Well, quite:
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
Oh dear, that's a rather important error!
Yes. Happily I was able to reverse out of the position I took after the first tweet. At a small profit
How could he possibly enforce the equalisation of that? Some kind of national salary index that lists what you should pay for every profession when you are advertising a job? Really barmy stuff.
I moved my company from London to Bristol because staff are easier to find and wages are not so inflated. No one running a company like mine wants to pay over the odds in London, it is just what you have to do to fill the positions there.
I suspect that, just as many here can't recall the pre-EEC days, many also don't remember how socialist & interventionist Britain used to be. Prices and income controls were part of that.
He's probably been mis-reported. If not, I doubt you'd have to pay London wages for Bristol people, rather t'other way round.
Bizarre. There is an obvious reason people is (say) London get more. Housing costs. Our four bed (really a three bed, but anyway) costs us £26,400/annum, which is more than the average post-tax wage nationally.
This is what we're dealing with. Watch closely now.
It's not fair. Therefore it's not right. Therefore it cannot be allowed to continue. If you disagree, you are a Tory. Tories are scum.
Any information can be relayed whilst in the pit lane. So, a driver could go through (without stopping) to get information. Obviously there's a time penalty involved due to the speed limit.
Although the DM has a strange definition of "undamaged" judging from the picture.
Another billion wasted on a heap of junk that cannot even avoid a massive merchant ship, that bodes well for when it is up against warships. Our surface ships engines don't work when the sun is shining so we can only fight in the arctic. To think that we once used to rule the waves and now would struggle to control a bathtub.
An absolute shambles.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
One wonders if actually being under the command of a foreign power might be an improvement.
Anyone but England?
Not often we get an honest acknowledgment that the UK (in this case our armed forces) is de facto run by England. Kudos.
Not often that we get a confession that Scottish nationalism is largely driven by a huge inferiority complex to England as well, made worse by the fact Scotland has done very well out of it.
Kudos.
Scotland did well when Britain did well. When it was run by Scots.
Eventually, as England finally developed an educated population and the dominance of Scots in Britains administration began to diminish, so did Britain.
Britain no longer does well. It has nothing to offer Scotland.
Comments
I'm rather impressed at how good he's doing.
There is an amazing disparity between the reality of the UKs military and the rhetoric used by politicians and the media.
For the moment, the only viable option is Pax Americana.
Public Sector Debt to GDP
June 2015 84.1%
June 2016 84.0%
It appears to be the first year on year fall in the debt ratio in the 14 years ONS list in their latest bulletin.
I suspect we would choose not to.
Once mobilised it would be however the alliance chose to lead the combined forces but that's irrelevant. It's the political decision to commit forces that matters, not the general in charge (presumably SACEUR would take personal control in this scenario)
Sooner or later, the treaty will have to be amended. It's not fit for purpose.
He's parked his tanks all over Old Labour ground. He didn't seem weird or scary or a Trot. He even had some new policy stuff.
Smith needs some substance now.
So transparent.
"Oh no you won't" - replied the crowd.
You should go professional!
The end of the Pax Britannica was certainly not a good period for humanity.
Prevention is cheaper than cure.
After all, it's not as if it's new for politicians to lie so anyone - but ANYONE - who believes what they say unthinkingly - is a proven grade one fool or totally naive.
I feel like a bit of a dick willy waving about my profit though - that wasn't my intention. I was giving a heads up to those wanting to back Gary Johnson that I was no longer willing to oppose him at current odds.
If no other serious layer steps up, then his odds are likely to come in.
BTW, IIRC, 98% of punters are long term net losers. If you're making an overall profit, you're doing something right!
Government debt-to-GDP is now falling in (comparing recent peak to current):
Spain (from 100.2% to 99.2%)
Germany (from 81% to 71.2%)
Portugal (from 132.8% to 129.0%)
Italy (from 136.0% to 132.7%)
The Netherlands (from 69.3% to 65.1%)
Belgium (from 110.8% to 106.0%)
France (from 98.0% to 96.1%)
Ireland (from 125.2% to 93.8%)
Greek government debt to GDP is rising, and is 176.9% currently.
Make no mistake: if Putin thought he could get away with 'recovering' the Baltic states, he would.
And most Russians would love him for it.
The political will to defend itself is just not there in Western Europe. FFS, Belgium would not even sell us artillery shells for Gulf War 1, what chance of Belgium (a NATO member) actually joining in a fight. NATO is dead in the water, the idea of a EU defence force is just a fantasy, but a dangerous one.
As these are unwound, government debt-to-GDP comes down quite quickly. On my numbers, even assuming just modest GDP growth and no meaningful ordinary budget surplus, Ireland is back to 60% by 2020. Similarly, Spain should be down 80%.
Can Trump really heal a divided nation.
That being said, Italy does have the advantage of minimal levels of personal debt (while Portugal has personal and corporate indebtedness issues). Italy also has a large, successful export industry, and a relatively well educated workforce (in the North). The question is whether Renzi is able to sort out Italy's incredibly inflexible labour market and labyrinthine legal system.
I moved my company from London to Bristol because staff are easier to find and wages are not so inflated. No one running a company like mine wants to pay over the odds in London, it is just what you have to do to fill the positions there.
https://twitter.com/holland_tom/status/756024296062025728
Militarily it would be useless, leading to a proliferation in the number of brass hats.
If the police officer who shot him isn't prosecuted then there'll be more Baton Rouge type incidents as the bad and the mad seek retribution.
There are many people in the world who'd just be happy with stability, more money and a quiet life (China) or an enlightened international bureaucracy that pursues the ideals held by a consensus of elites in the West (EU)
Nowhere it is written in stone that liberal democracies will ultimately emerge worldwide to inherit the earth.
We have voted to Leave.
Therefore we must and will Leave.
People who voted to Remain and lost now have two options: either argue for and work for the best possible Leave, or stand on the sidelines carping, moaning, and hoping that the country will suffer just so they can say "I told you so".
Choose wisely.
"The scene in Downing Street earlier, perhaps: an aide opened a briefcase, extracted a package and handled it gingerly. ‘This, Prime Minister,’ said the aide, ‘is something we have been working on for a while. Something you have not used before. It is A Joke, Prime Minister. You pull the pin and throw the Joke at the Opposition. Jokes can cause damage. They must be handled with care.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3700341/Her-death-stare-vintage-Mrs-Thatcher-QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-Theresa-Jeremy-Corbyn-nightmares-PMQs.html#ixzz4F2RY4fZp
Whoever wins, we lose!
I'm afraid you've missed the point.
We have voted to Leave.
Therefore we must and will Leave.
People who voted to Remain and lost now have two options: either argue for and work for the best possible Leave, or stand on the sidelines carping, moaning, and hoping that the country will suffer just so they can say "I told you so".
Choose wisely.
--------------------------------
What we are going to get is a reboot of Project Fear, but this time it will only be EEA membership that can 'save' us from the killer bees, alien invasions and plagues of Egypt.
At least that's what the relatively intelligent Remainers are doing/going to do.
The brain dead will continue to haunt boards like this, wittering and whingeing.
http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/01glance/html/symbols/sport.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Board_for_Prices_and_Incomes
He's probably been mis-reported. If not, I doubt you'd have to pay London wages for Bristol people, rather t'other way round.
If I had a pound for every time a 'phile (and it almost always is a 'phile) promised some new EU integration measure would never happen, before it actually did happen, I'd be a very rich man.
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
Will be interesting to see if that turns out to be correct. I thought about 60/40 other way but we will find out soon i guess
Kudos.
This was my biggest reason for voting Leave.
@paulwaugh: Apologies I garbled tweet on early sample of 183k. It's 60/40 pro Corbyn/anti Corbyn, not other way round.
We can look again at EEA in 10/20 years time if by then the UK / EU trade is too little to justify the fees/movement, but to leave now would be too much too soon.
Of course if I was Davis I woudn't say that as I would be looking at the best movement restrictions/EEA membership fee ratio possible.
Us leaving EEA would also impact the EU badly so that is a bargaining chip.
It's not fair. Therefore it's not right. Therefore it cannot be allowed to continue. If you disagree, you are a Tory. Tories are scum.
I wonder if that was a genuine error or a thought fathering the wish from Waugh...
Some unconscious soft left (Anti-Corbyn) bias slipping out ?
Any information can be relayed whilst in the pit lane. So, a driver could go through (without stopping) to get information. Obviously there's a time penalty involved due to the speed limit.
Turnout last time was 422k out of 554k - members 245k, RS 115k, affiliates 70k
Eventually, as England finally developed an educated population and the dominance of Scots in Britains administration began to diminish, so did Britain.
Britain no longer does well. It has nothing to offer Scotland.