Tangentially, can anyone think of any military spending in the history of history that's provided more return on its investment than the million dollars a year or whatever that the Russians must have spent on Fancy Bear?
I think we can take the Russian state connection for granted, but can we be sure that they are under the military's purview? Knowing who they were working for might actually tell us a great deal about internal Russian politics. The Foreign Ministry? FSB/KGB? Putin directly? Some other player?
The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
48% support is not little.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
The either/or fallicy is as daft today as it always has been. There are good reasons for being close to both the US and to Europe -which is why precisely that policy has been pursued by the govt for over 50 years. But neither alliance is so important as to be unquestionable.
Interesting piece, Mr. Herdson. It also raises the question of how India, China and Russia see things going forward, as well as the potential for the UK (both negative and positive).
The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
48% support is not little.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
The either/or fallicy is as daft today as it always has been. There are good reasons for being close to both the US and to Europe -which is why precisely that policy has been pursued by the govt for over 50 years. But neither alliance is so important as to be unquestionable.
Well physically we are unquestionably part of Europe.
The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
48% support is not little.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
48% do not support the EU's political institution. 48% is the combination of those that supported that, those that supported the government (and almost every other parties) recommendation and those that opposed change/supported the status quo.
We can only speculate like that, similarly Leave was a coalition of interests, varying from pro EEA soft Brexiteers, people opposed to immigration, people who wanted £350 million extra a week for the NHS and some that dislike EU institutions.
The idea that offence is the preserve of the left is absurd. Very easy to offend a right winger, you just have to challenge what they care about.
This right winger can't stand issues being off limits. Offence is about demarcating certain issues as off limits.
Ha, ha. You called out left-wing anti-Semitism, you are silent about right wing white supremacy. There's no principle involved. It's all about partisanship.
There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation 1 United States $596.0 bn 2 China $215.0 bn 3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn 4 Russia $66.4 bn 5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?
There is a remarkable amount of undue pessimism on this thread. It seems to be many people's reaction to continually being on the wrong side of history:
- left wing when leadership has abandoned all hope of winning elections - identity politics-centric when the common ground has finally rejected it - unable to move past the cold war paradigm
Trumpism is identity politics - as his appointment of white supremacists to senior positions demonstrates. Russian nationalism preceded the Cold War and has continued since its end. Jeremy Corbyn wants an end to NATO and supports Putin, just as he supports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.
Calling identity politics by appealing to a trope of left-wing identity politics isn't going to wash I'm afraid.
Trumpism is the end of offence, or rather, the end of there being a problem in being offended. I'm not surprised we're seeing it in America; the last two years of European politics has demonstrated that the cozy liberal post-war cultural consensus is over.
If an alien anthropologist landed in early November he would have had every right to think that sexism was the most heinous of crimes with the amount of wailing apparent.
Nope - white supremacy is about identity and it's been around for centuries, as the history of the US demonstrates only too clearly.
What is enlightening is how right wingers who rightly called foul over Corbyn Labour's anti-Semitism are perfectly content to accommodate Trump's racism. It shows their objections to Corbyn were not based on principle, but on partisanship. No surprise there, of course.
Lord - you made a virtual identical comment about 3 days ago. Obsessive what? Time to move on and deal with the new reality - screeching racism ain't gonna cut it.
I am observing that the next President of the United States is a racist. I understand you have no problem with that. I do. We disagree. Get over it.
The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
I really can't see many pro-EUers being 'Want Only Europe'. Would you care to expand on it?
It almost certainly has more merit than 'Water Twice Weekly'.
Remainers seem to like, some indeed are obsessed with
- the check on our democracy that Europe has become - the maintenance of a form of European economic protectionism that concurrently allows some claim to being outward looking and progressive - the entirely ahistorical notion that we've a lot in common with continental Europe, despite having an entirely different legal system, philosophy of government and outlook towards the wider world
Many seem to associate more with the elites of other nations than they do with their fellow country-man. As a one nation Tory, this worries me deeply.
The idea that offence is the preserve of the left is absurd. Very easy to offend a right winger, you just have to challenge what they care about.
This right winger can't stand issues being off limits. Offence is about demarcating certain issues as off limits.
Ha, ha. You called out left-wing anti-Semitism, you are silent about right wing white supremacy. There's no principle involved. It's all about partisanship.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
Yep - emerging Tory Brexit policy is based on cuddling up to a protectionist, white supremacist American president and appeasing an expansionist Russian nationalist president. That is certainly putting the great back into Britain.
The problem with that argument is that taken to its logical conclusion we would have been discussing arguments to stay in Europe to cosy up to a corrupt pisshead who greets his fellow right wing leaders by giving them the Nazi salute, and greets others by kissing them, giggling loudly and falling over. Which isn't exactly a great argument for the EU.
I have often thought the leaders of the EU are their own worst enemies. Juncker however is a bad one even by their standards, as he doesn't even have any brains (as his recent actions noted in the article confirm).
The idea that offence is the preserve of the left is absurd. Very easy to offend a right winger, you just have to challenge what they care about.
This right winger can't stand issues being off limits. Offence is about demarcating certain issues as off limits.
Ha, ha. You called out left-wing anti-Semitism, you are silent about right wing white supremacy. There's no principle involved. It's all about partisanship.
Dr. Foxinsox, Remain was also a coalition, of those fearful of leaving, persuaded by the weight of Establishment opinion, and genuinely EU-phile types.
There's nothing unusual about that. Parties have coalitions of supporters.
Mr. Jonathan, you remind me of the Not The Nine O'Clock News Question Time sketch.
The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
I really can't see many pro-EUers being 'Want Only Europe'. Would you care to expand on it?
It almost certainly has more merit than 'Water Twice Weekly'.
Remainers seem to like, some indeed are obsessed with
- the check on our democracy that Europe has become - the maintenance of a form of European economic protectionism that concurrently allows some claim to being outward looking and progressive - the entirely ahistorical notion that we've a lot in common with continental Europe, despite having an entirely different legal system, philosophy of government and outlook towards the wider world
Many seem to associate more with the elites of other nations than they do with their fellow country-man. As a one nation Tory, this worries me deeply.
Urrrm, that anti-remainer and anti-EU spiel had nothing to do with 'want only Europe'.
Well physically we are unquestionably part of Europe.
Geographically we are technically an island on the same continental shelf as Europe. That has certainly had a major impact on our political development - for example we are the only country in Europe that was not invaded by Napoleon (for the moment counting Ireland as a separate country, which technically it was until 1801) and therefore one of the few whose legal systems were not directly based on French Revolutionary era concepts as codified in the Napoleonic system.
That is of course one reason why we've always been so very ambivalent about the whole EU idea.
The idea that offence is the preserve of the left is absurd. Very easy to offend a right winger, you just have to challenge what they care about.
This right winger can't stand issues being off limits. Offence is about demarcating certain issues as off limits.
Ha, ha. You called out left-wing anti-Semitism, you are silent about right wing white supremacy. There's no principle involved. It's all about partisanship.
Carry on Demarcating Issues as Off Limits.
The lesser known of the franchise....
Right wing racism - fine
Left wing racism - bad
Your hypocrisy is a thing of wonder.
What on earth are you bleeting on about?
Your hypocrisy.
Oh grow up.
We fundamentally disagree as to the notion of identity politics.
For you, apparently, we're all at it, for me, the very division of people into different identities based on a racial cleavage is farcical.
Morning all. Very thought provoking article from Mr Herdson. Junker is an alcoholic idiot, sooner he is out of the way, the better for Europe, the UK and the US. Trump will be more pragmatic in power than he has been in campaigning, but if he can make the rest of NATO pull their weight that's not a bad thing.
Also a lovely overnight comments thread, put a smile on my ugly morning face anyway.
The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
48% support is not little.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
The either/or fallicy is as daft today as it always has been. There are good reasons for being close to both the US and to Europe -which is why precisely that policy has been pursued by the govt for over 50 years. But neither alliance is so important as to be unquestionable.
Well physically we are unquestionably part of Europe.
Interesting thread Mr Herdson, thanks. – Just a couple of points, the UK remains committed to NATO and I do not see this relationship changing, irrespective of Brexit, or who sits in the White House. Not sure if you are implying that the UK could, or should use NATO as a bargaining chip in the negotiations, but if so, that would certainly be a new low for the country and best avoided. – Trump’s comments regarding member countries not paying their share in support of NATO are long overdue IMO, the EU27 cannot expect America to continue picking up the tab for their security and this maybe the kick up the arse they need. Finally, on the subject of Junker, he’s an arse of the first order and that will never change.
The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
I really can't see many pro-EUers being 'Want Only Europe'. Would you care to expand on it?
It almost certainly has more merit than 'Water Twice Weekly'.
Remainers seem to like, some indeed are obsessed with
- the check on our democracy that Europe has become - the maintenance of a form of European economic protectionism that concurrently allows some claim to being outward looking and progressive - the entirely ahistorical notion that we've a lot in common with continental Europe, despite having an entirely different legal system, philosophy of government and outlook towards the wider world
Many seem to associate more with the elites of other nations than they do with their fellow country-man. As a one nation Tory, this worries me deeply.
Tired, tedious, discredited cliches. Leaving the single market and throwing our lot in with a crooked, white supremacist US president will not do any harm to the elite. It's those at the bottom who will suffer most.
The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
I really can't see many pro-EUers being 'Want Only Europe'. Would you care to expand on it?
It almost certainly has more merit than 'Water Twice Weekly'.
Remainers seem to like, some indeed are obsessed with
- the check on our democracy that Europe has become - the maintenance of a form of European economic protectionism that concurrently allows some claim to being outward looking and progressive - the entirely ahistorical notion that we've a lot in common with continental Europe, despite having an entirely different legal system, philosophy of government and outlook towards the wider world
Many seem to associate more with the elites of other nations than they do with their fellow country-man. As a one nation Tory, this worries me deeply.
Tired, tedious, discredited cliches. Leaving the single market and throwing our lot in with a crooked, white supremacist US president will not do any harm to the elite. It's those at the bottom who will suffer most.
Something has really got your goat this week, eh?
The crashing down of identity politics around you, perhaps?
Oh, and England's recovery this morning didn't last too well, only Stokes and Bairstow with a decent partnership. All out for the follow-on score, but I think India will take the bat again. England now no chance of the win.
The idea that offence is the preserve of the left is absurd. Very easy to offend a right winger, you just have to challenge what they care about.
This right winger can't stand issues being off limits. Offence is about demarcating certain issues as off limits.
Ha, ha. You called out left-wing anti-Semitism, you are silent about right wing white supremacy. There's no principle involved. It's all about partisanship.
Carry on Demarcating Issues as Off Limits.
The lesser known of the franchise....
Right wing racism - fine
Left wing racism - bad
Your hypocrisy is a thing of wonder.
What on earth are you bleeting on about?
Your hypocrisy.
Oh grow up.
We fundamentally disagree as to the notion of identity politics.
For you, apparently, we're all at it, for me, the very division of people into different identities based on a racial cleavage is farcical.
Got it: you believe it was wrong to denounce Corbynite anti-Semitism. You have no problem with it.
Tangentially, can anyone think of any military spending in the history of history that's provided more return on its investment than the million dollars a year or whatever that the Russians must have spent on Fancy Bear?
I think we can take the Russian state connection for granted, but can we be sure that they are under the military's purview? Knowing who they were working for might actually tell us a great deal about internal Russian politics. The Foreign Ministry? FSB/KGB? Putin directly? Some other player?
Because of its extensive operations against defense ministries and other military victims, FANCY BEAR’s profile closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government, and may indicate affiliation with Главное Разведывательное Управление (Main Intelligence Department) or GRU, Russia’s premier military intelligence service.
The idea that offence is the preserve of the left is absurd. Very easy to offend a right winger, you just have to challenge what they care about.
This right winger can't stand issues being off limits. Offence is about demarcating certain issues as off limits.
Ha, ha. You called out left-wing anti-Semitism, you are silent about right wing white supremacy. There's no principle involved. It's all about partisanship.
Carry on Demarcating Issues as Off Limits.
The lesser known of the franchise....
Right wing racism - fine
Left wing racism - bad
Your hypocrisy is a thing of wonder.
What on earth are you bleeting on about?
Your hypocrisy.
Oh grow up.
We fundamentally disagree as to the notion of identity politics.
For you, apparently, we're all at it, for me, the very division of people into different identities based on a racial cleavage is farcical.
Got it: you believe it was wrong to denounce Corbynite anti-Semitism. You have no problem with it.
I think it is farcical, and doomed to fail. All forms of identity politics are
The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
48% support is not little.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
The either/or fallicy is as daft today as it always has been. There are good reasons for being close to both the US and to Europe -which is why precisely that policy has been pursued by the govt for over 50 years. But neither alliance is so important as to be unquestionable.
Well physically we are unquestionably part of Europe.
Where did you go to school?
Are you saying Britain is not part of Europe? Which continent is it part of? Please explain.
Tangentially, can anyone think of any military spending in the history of history that's provided more return on its investment than the million dollars a year or whatever that the Russians must have spent on Fancy Bear?
I think we can take the Russian state connection for granted, but can we be sure that they are under the military's purview? Knowing who they were working for might actually tell us a great deal about internal Russian politics. The Foreign Ministry? FSB/KGB? Putin directly? Some other player?
Because of its extensive operations against defense ministries and other military victims, FANCY BEAR’s profile closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government, and may indicate affiliation with Главное Разведывательное Управление (Main Intelligence Department) or GRU, Russia’s premier military intelligence service.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
Yep - emerging Tory Brexit policy is based on cuddling up to a protectionist, white supremacist American president and appeasing an expansionist Russian nationalist president. That is certainly putting the great back into Britain.
The problem with that argument is that taken to its logical conclusion we would have been discussing arguments to stay in Europe to cosy up to a corrupt pisshead who greets his fellow right wing leaders by giving them the Nazi salute, and greets others by kissing them, giggling loudly and falling over. Which isn't exactly a great argument for the EU.
I have often thought the leaders of the EU are their own worst enemies. Juncker however is a bad one even by their standards, as he doesn't even have any brains (as his recent actions noted in the article confirm).
Juncker is a powerless fool. Trump is an immensely powerful fool. Putin is not a fool. If the Americans pull out of Europe. We are subject almost entirely to the whims of the latter two. Juncker was, is and will always be an irrelevance.
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
I really can't see many pro-EUers being 'Want Only Europe'. Would you care to expand on it?
It almost certainly has more merit than 'Water Twice Weekly'.
Remainers seem to like, some indeed are obsessed with
- the check on our democracy that Europe has become - the maintenance of a form of European economic protectionism that concurrently allows some claim to being outward looking and progressive - the entirely ahistorical notion that we've a lot in common with continental Europe, despite having an entirely different legal system, philosophy of government and outlook towards the wider world
Many seem to associate more with the elites of other nations than they do with their fellow country-man. As a one nation Tory, this worries me deeply.
Urrrm, that anti-remainer and anti-EU spiel had nothing to do with 'want only Europe'.
Errm:
- the check on our democracy that Europe has become - Europe over Britain - the maintenance of a form of European economic protectionism that concurrently allows some claim to being outward looking and progressive - European economy over everything else - the entirely ahistorical notion that we've a lot in common with continental Europe, despite having an entirely different legal system, philosophy of government and outlook towards the wider world European outlook on the world
There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation 1 United States $596.0 bn 2 China $215.0 bn 3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn 4 Russia $66.4 bn 5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?
Trumpism is identity politics - as his appointment of white supremacists to senior positions demonstrates. Russian nationalism preceded the Cold War and has continued since its end. Jeremy Corbyn wants an end to NATO and supports Putin, just as he supports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.
Calling identity politics by appealing to a trope of left-wing identity politics isn't going to wash I'm afraid.
Nope - white supremacy is about identity and it's been around for centuries, as the history of the US demonstrates only too clearly.
What is enlightening is how right wingers who rightly called foul over Corbyn Labour's anti-Semitism are perfectly content to accommodate Trump's racism. It shows their objections to Corbyn were not based on principle, but on partisanship. No surprise there, of course.
Lord - you made a virtual identical comment about 3 days ago. Obsessive what? Time to move on and deal with the new reality - screeching racism ain't gonna cut it.
I am observing that the next President of the United States is a racist. I understand you have no problem with that. I do. We disagree. Get over it.
That is not the problem - for you the claim is sufficient to produce a whole set of subsequent results before the man has even taken office. It is very typical of the left and is a way to shut down discussion and rational debate. The very reason why things like Brexit and Trump have actually happened. If now is not the time for the left to start listening then it's never going to happen. For the record I have little hope for a successful presidency so am unlikely to be disappointed. Of more interest is why Obama's message has petered out so quickly.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
48% support is not little.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
The either/or fallicy is as daft today as it always has been. There are good reasons for being close to both the US and to Europe -which is why precisely that policy has been pursued by the govt for over 50 years. But neither alliance is so important as to be unquestionable.
Well physically we are unquestionably part of Europe.
To paraphrase Dan Hannan from the referendum campaign - it's possible to love Europe yet dislike the EU, in pretty much the same way as it's possible to love football yet hate FIFA.
A great comment, from someone who speaks several languages and engages in European culture, without wishing to be ruled over by a corrupt and unelected elite bureaucracy, led by the likes of Junker and Tusk.
The idea that offence is the preserve of the left is absurd. Very easy to offend a right winger, you just have to challenge what they care about.
This right winger can't stand issues being off limits. Offence is about demarcating certain issues as off limits.
Ha, ha. You called out left-wing anti-Semitism, you are silent about right wing white supremacy. There's no principle involved. It's all about partisanship.
Carry on Demarcating Issues as Off Limits.
The lesser known of the franchise....
Right wing racism - fine
Left wing racism - bad
Your hypocrisy is a thing of wonder.
What on earth are you bleeting on about?
Your hypocrisy.
Oh grow up.
We fundamentally disagree as to the notion of identity politics.
For you, apparently, we're all at it, for me, the very division of people into different identities based on a racial cleavage is farcical.
Got it: you believe it was wrong to denounce Corbynite anti-Semitism. You have no problem with it.
I think it is farcical, and doomed to fail. All forms of identity politics are
Both anti-Semitism and white supremacy have done a fair bit of damage over the years, I think you'll find. But at least you are consistent in not having a problem with either, so I'll give you that.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
Yep - emerging Tory Brexit policy is based on cuddling up to a protectionist, white supremacist American president and appeasing an expansionist Russian nationalist president. That is certainly putting the great back into Britain.
The problem with that argument is that taken to its logical conclusion we would have been discussing arguments to stay in Europe to cosy up to a corrupt pisshead who greets his fellow right wing leaders by giving them the Nazi salute, and greets others by kissing them, giggling loudly and falling over. Which isn't exactly a great argument for the EU.
I have often thought the leaders of the EU are their own worst enemies. Juncker however is a bad one even by their standards, as he doesn't even have any brains (as his recent actions noted in the article confirm).
Juncker is a powerless fool. Trump is an immensely powerful fool. Putin is not a fool. If the Americans pull out of Europe. We are subject almost entirely to the whims of the latter two. Juncker was, is and will always be an irrelevance.
OT. the header title reminds me of the choice faced by the American people a few days ago - I suspect an awfully large number of people in both the UK and the EU might struggle with that choice - a sad comment on us perhaps but an even worse one for the EU.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
48% support is not little.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
48% do not support the EU's political institution. 48% is the combination of those that supported that, those that supported the government (and almost every other parties) recommendation and those that opposed change/supported the status quo.
We can only speculate like that, similarly Leave was a coalition of interests, varying from pro EEA soft Brexiteers, people opposed to immigration, people who wanted £350 million extra a week for the NHS and some that dislike EU institutions.
Of course it was, not denying that. Any time that you force a choice in straight Yes/No or Leave/Remain choice you're going to end up with coalitions of interests.
Presumably all 52% are not in awe of the EU's political institutions, while only some of the 48% are. Realistically the evidence shows that the EU's political institutions are only beloved by a very tiny proportion of the UK.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
48% support is not little.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
48% do not support the EU's political institution. 48% is the combination of those that supported that, those that supported the government (and almost every other parties) recommendation and those that opposed change/supported the status quo.
We can only speculate like that, similarly Leave was a coalition of interests, varying from pro EEA soft Brexiteers, people opposed to immigration, people who wanted £350 million extra a week for the NHS and some that dislike EU institutions.
Of course it was, not denying that. Any time that you force a choice in straight Yes/No or Leave/Remain choice you're going to end up with coalitions of interests.
Presumably all 52% are not in awe of the EU's political institutions, while only some of the 48% are. Realistically the evidence shows that the EU's political institutions are only beloved by a very tiny proportion of the UK.
Yup - and many of them post here by the evidence of the past few months
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
I really can't see many pro-EUers being 'Want Only Europe'. Would you care to expand on it?
It almost certainly has more merit than 'Water Twice Weekly'.
Remainers seem to like, some indeed are obsessed with
- the check on our democracy that Europe has become - the maintenance of a form of European economic protectionism that concurrently allows some claim to being outward looking and progressive - the entirely ahistorical notion that we've a lot in common with continental Europe, despite having an entirely different legal system, philosophy of government and outlook towards the wider world
Many seem to associate more with the elites of other nations than they do with their fellow country-man. As a one nation Tory, this worries me deeply.
Urrrm, that anti-remainer and anti-EU spiel had nothing to do with 'want only Europe'.
Errm:
- the check on our democracy that Europe has become - Europe over Britain - the maintenance of a form of European economic protectionism that concurrently allows some claim to being outward looking and progressive - European economy over everything else - the entirely ahistorical notion that we've a lot in common with continental Europe, despite having an entirely different legal system, philosophy of government and outlook towards the wider world European outlook on the world
All very logical reasons to leave NATO as much as EU.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
48% support is not little.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
The either/or fallicy is as daft today as it always has been. There are good reasons for being close to both the US and to Europe -which is why precisely that policy has been pursued by the govt for over 50 years. But neither alliance is so important as to be unquestionable.
Well physically we are unquestionably part of Europe.
To paraphrase Dan Hannan from the referendum campaign - it's possible to love Europe yet dislike the EU, in pretty much the same way as it's possible to love football yet hate FIFA.
A great comment, from someone who speaks several languages and engages in European culture, without wishing to be ruled over by a corrupt and unelected elite bureaucracy, led by the likes of Junker and Tusk.
There is no hope if people cannot accept (or only begrudgingly accept) that we are physically part of Europe.
It's a fact. Location makes a difference, even in this crazy globalised world. Our policy needs to reflect that.
There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation 1 United States $596.0 bn 2 China $215.0 bn 3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn 4 Russia $66.4 bn 5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?
Trumpism is identity politicspports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.
Calling identity politics by appealing to a trope of left-wing identity politics isn't going to wash I'm afraid.
Nope - white supremacy is about identity and it's been around for centuries, as the history of the US demonstrates only too clearly.
What is enlightening is how rightere, of course.
Lord - you made a virtual identical comment about 3 days ago. Obsessive what? Time to move on and deal with the new reality - screeching racism ain't gonna cut it.
I am observing that the next President of the United States is a racist. I understand you have no problem with that. I do. We disagree. Get over it.
That is not the problem - for you the claim is sufficient to produce a whole set of subsequent results before the man has even taken office. It is very typical of the left and is a way to shut down discussion and rational debate. The very reason why things like Brexit and Trump have actually happened. If now is not the time for the left to start listening then it's never going to happen. For the record I have little hope for a successful presidency so am unlikely to be disappointed. Of more interest is why Obama's message has petered out so quickly.
Guilty - I do indeed believe that there will be ongoing consequences to having a white supremacist, protectionist, isolationist, crooked US president. I also agree that the left's many deep flaws helped to get us to where we are now. But the right owns everything that happens next.
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
I really can't see many pro-EUers being 'Want Only Europe'. Would you care to expand on it?
It almost certainly has more merit than 'Water Twice Weekly'.
Remainers seem to like, some indeed are obsessed with
- the check on our democracy that Europe has become - the maintenance of a form of European economic protectionism that concurrently allows some claim to being outward looking and progressive - the entirely ahistorical notion that we've a lot in common with continental Europe, despite having an entirely different legal system, philosophy of government and outlook towards the wider world
Many seem to associate more with the elites of other nations than they do with their fellow country-man. As a one nation Tory, this worries me deeply.
Urrrm, that anti-remainer and anti-EU spiel had nothing to do with 'want only Europe'.
Errm:
- the check on our democracy that Europe has become - Europe over Britain - the maintenance of a form of European economic protectionism that concurrently allows some claim to being outward looking and progressive - European economy over everything else - the entirely ahistorical notion that we've a lot in common with continental Europe, despite having an entirely different legal system, philosophy of government and outlook towards the wider world European outlook on the world
Nope, does not mean 'Want Only Europe'. It's the 'only' word that you're falling down on.
There is a remarkable amount of undue pessimism on this thread. It seems to be many people's reaction to continually being on the wrong side of history:
- left wing when leadership has abandoned all hope of winning elections - identity politics-centric when the common ground has finally rejected it - unable to move past the cold war paradigm
Trumpism is identity politics - as his appointment of white supremacists to senior positions demonstrates. Russian nationalism preceded the Cold War and has continued since its end. Jeremy Corbyn wants an end to NATO and supports Putin, just as he supports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.
Calling identity politics by appealing to a trope of left-wing identity politics isn't going to wash I'm afraid.
Trumpism is the end of offence, or rather, the end of there being a problem in being offended. I'm not surprised we're seeing it in America; the last two years of European politics has demonstrated that the cozy liberal post-war cultural consensus is over.
If an alien anthropologist landed in early November he would have had every right to think that sexism was the most heinous of crimes with the amount of wailing apparent.
Nope - white supremacy is about identity and it's been around for centuries, as the history of the US demonstrates only too clearly.
What is enlightening is how right wingers who rightly called foul over Corbyn Labour's anti-Semitism are perfectly content to accommodate Trump's racism. It shows their objections to Corbyn were not based on principle, but on partisanship. No surprise there, of course.
Lord - you made a virtual identical comment about 3 days ago. Obsessive what? Time to move on and deal with the new reality - screeching racism ain't gonna cut it.
I am observing that the next President of the United States is a racist. I understand you have no problem with that. I do. We disagree. Get over it.
Rascist - an interesting question.
In terms of those he is surrounding himself with - yes. In terms of statements/speaches - of the saloon bar variety In terms of actions - he had done business with clowns and shady characters of all races over the years.
It is worth noting that he is apparently less racist than Putin. Which isn't saying alot.
I am not sure that Trump is such a change in US policy. Obama showed very little interest in Europe throughout his Presidency. Any interest in foreign affairs was mainly in the Middle East and was largely delegated. I think his own interest was rather in the Pacific. Understandable for someone born in Hawaii but also a true reflection of where the US is being challenged. More money on the Pacific fleet or more tanks in Germany? It's a no brainier.
If this makes Europeans nervous that just might work to our advantage.
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
1) Most EU countries don't want to spend 2% of GDP on defense. 2) Putin wants to "influence" a large chunk of Eastern Europe. Including portions of the eastern EU. 3) European defense is provided by the US, the US, the US, the US. And Britain and France. 4) Various European politicians are therefore in the position of seriously disliking the provider of 80% of the their defense. 5) And gassing on about "punishing" the provider of another 10% or so, in economic terms.
And, no, Germany spending 2% on a field army that can defend Germany and maybe Poland will not end the world as we know it.
There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Trumpism is identity politicspports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.
Nope - white supremacy is about identity and it's been around for centuries, as the history of the US demonstrates only too clearly.
What is enlightening is how rightere, of course.
Lord - you made a virtual identical comment about 3 days ago. Obsessive what? Time to move on and deal with the new reality - screeching racism ain't gonna cut it.
I am observing that the next President of the United States is a racist. I understand you have no problem with that. I do. We disagree. Get over it.
That is not the problem - for you the claim is sufficient to produce a whole set of subsequent results before the man has even taken office. It is very typical of the left and is a way to shut down discussion and rational debate. The very reason why things like Brexit and Trump have actually happened. If now is not the time for the left to start listening then it's never going to happen. For the record I have little hope for a successful presidency so am unlikely to be disappointed. Of more interest is why Obama's message has petered out so quickly.
Guilty - I do indeed believe that there will be ongoing consequences to having a white supremacist, protectionist, isolationist, crooked US president. I also agree that the left's many deep flaws helped to get us to where we are now. But the right owns everything that happens next.
Indeed - so far many of the initial Brexit forecasts have been less severe than forecast - indeed as an expat [paid in sterling] I'm one of the few who seemed to have noticed it so far. no doubt worse is yet to come but I doubt if it is the end of the world. On your first sentence you foresee only bad consequences of a Trump Presidency because of his past and the campaign rhetoric. I'm a little more sanguine. Either way he has been elected and deserves his chance.
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
There is a remarkable amount of undue pessimism on this thread. It seems to be many people's reaction to continually being on the wrong side of history:
- left wing when leadership has abandoned all hope of winning elections - identity politics-centric when the common ground has finally rejected it - unable to move past the cold war paradigm
Trumpism is identity politics - as his appointment of white supremacists to senior positions demonstrates. Russian nationalism preceded the Cold War and has continued since its end. Jeremy Corbyn wants an end to NATO and supports Putin, just as he supports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.
Calling identity politics by appealing to a trope of left-wing identity politics isn't going to wash I'm afraid.
Trumpism is the end of offence, or rather, the end of there being a problem in being offended. I'm not surprised we're seeing it in America; the last two years of European politics has demonstrated that the cozy liberal post-war cultural consensus is over.
If an alien anthropologist landed in early November he would have had every right to think that sexism was the most heinous of crimes with the amount of wailing apparent.
Nope - white supremacy is about identity and it's been around for centuries, as the history of the US demonstrates only too clearly.
What is enlightening is how right wingers who rightly called foul over Corbyn Labour's anti-Semitism are perfectly content to accommodate Trump's racism. It shows their objections to Corbyn were not based on principle, but on partisanship. No surprise there, of course.
Lord - you made a virtual identical comment about 3 days ago. Obsessive what? Time to move on and deal with the new reality - screeching racism ain't gonna cut it.
I am observing that the next President of the United States is a racist. I understand you have no problem with that. I do. We disagree. Get over it.
Rascist - an interesting question.
In terms of those he is surrounding himself with - yes. In terms of statements/speaches - of the saloon bar variety In terms of actions - he had done business with clowns and shady characters of all races over the years.
It is worth noting that he is apparently less racist than Putin. Which isn't saying alot.
His comments on the judge of Mexican extraction went beyond the saloon bar.
Tangentially, can anyone think of any military spending in the history of history that's provided more return on its investment than the million dollars a year or whatever that the Russians must have spent on Fancy Bear?
Early radars gave us microwaves and medical-scanners. Bandages evolved into W.A.N.K.E.R's infamous Tampax advert and - of course - Kleenex. Jet-engines, kevlar and penicillin come to mind.
Oh: The guinea-pigs and reconstructive surgery. Racal Ptarmigan and mobile communication. The internet; secure algorithms, ADA (for defeating Hillary).
Shall I continue gaijin or have you rescinded your comment whilst I compose this response...?
In terms of those he is surrounding himself with - yes. In terms of statements/speaches - of the saloon bar variety In terms of actions - he had done business with clowns and shady characters of all races over the years.
It is worth noting that he is apparently less racist than Putin. Which isn't saying alot.
I think calling Trump a racist is wrong. He is - slightly - and as you say, hes surrounding himself with them.
But Trump himself is a bit more complex - and IMO worrying - than that. If it was in his monetary interests to be anti-racist, he would be; fully and vehemently. It's not about right or wrong; its not about any ism. It's about what's good for brand Trump, or perhaps now Cult Trump.
This is why he could support the democrats just a few years ago, and says whatever seems best for him at the time. He also allies himself with whoever can further his personal aims, whatever their flaws.
His presidency will be about him, not the country.
Juncker is a powerless fool. Trump is an immensely powerful fool. Putin is not a fool. If the Americans pull out of Europe. We are subject almost entirely to the whims of the latter two. Juncker was, is and will always be an irrelevance.
It is far from certain that the office he holds will always be an irrelevance. Indeed, within ten years of Brexit its holder could easily be the most powerful person on the planet.
That will not be Juncker. However, on past disastrous form it will almost certainly be someone as bad. Equally, Trump and Putin may both be dead by then, and there is every likelihood Trump at least will be replaced by someone far better - it is eminently possible that Nikki Haley will be president. Russia may not even exist in its current form.
I am trying to say that getting worked up over personalities, no matter how flawed, is not a worthwhile pursuit. We should focus on systems. The US one has just gone boing, and this will almost certainly lead to some changes although for logistical reasons I expect them to be mostly tweaks not constitutional reform. The European one has always been shockingly bad and has only been made worse by the inept meddling of its corrupt, stupid and incompetent operators. Heck, they even claimed Juncker was put forward due to a democratic mandate and not due to a mind-blowing stitch-up!
Therefore even though things are not as I, a Remainer would wish at present I can fully understand and sympathise with those who suggest longer term the US is a better bet.
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
The logical response to Brexit is for the UK and the continuing EU to find a new modus operandi. The question is what happens if one or both parties is unable to construct a logical response. It is only then that the prospect of Britain withdrawing its security commitments to the Continent becomes a live issue.
I'm with the author on this one: if the EU is unable or unwilling to come to a decent agreement with us, then the British electorate will be entirely within its rights to question whether or not continuing to offer security guarantees to the Continent is justified.
His presidency will be about him, not the country.
Have no fear. Nothing could be better for brand Trump than leaving a country physically transformed for the better. He's deadly serious about infrastructure spending, and given that it's what he knows best is likely to be something he gets dragged into spending most of his time overseeing.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
48% support is not little.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
The either/or fallicy is as daft today as it always has been. There are good reasons for being close to both the US and to Europe -which is why precisely that policy has been pursued by the govt for over 50 years. But neither alliance is so important as to be unquestionable.
Well physically we are unquestionably part of Europe.
To paraphrase Dan Hannan from the referendum campaign - it's possible to love Europe yet dislike the EU, in pretty much the same way as it's possible to love football yet hate FIFA.
A great comment, from someone who speaks several languages and engages in European culture, without wishing to be ruled over by a corrupt and unelected elite bureaucracy, led by the likes of Junker and Tusk.
There is no hope if people cannot accept (or only begrudgingly accept) that we are physically part of Europe.
It's a fact. Location makes a difference, even in this crazy globalised world. Our policy needs to reflect that.
We are on the European continental shelf, we are not a part of continental Europe.
Juncker is a powerless fool. Trump is an immensely powerful fool. Putin is not a fool. If the Americans pull out of Europe. We are subject almost entirely to the whims of the latter two. Juncker was, is and will always be an irrelevance.
It is far from certain that the office he holds will always be an irrelevance. Indeed, within ten years of Brexit its holder could easily be the most powerful person on the planet.
That will not be Juncker. However, on past disastrous form it will almost certainly be someone as bad. Equally, Trump and Putin may both be dead by then, and there is every likelihood Trump at least will be replaced by someone far better - it is eminently possible that Nikki Haley will be president. Russia may not even exist in its current form.
I am trying to say that getting worked up over personalities, no matter how flawed, is not a worthwhile pursuit. We should focus on systems. The US one has just gone boing, and this will almost certainly lead to some changes although for logistical reasons I expect them to be mostly tweaks not constitutional reform. The European one has always been shockingly bad and has only been made worse by the inept meddling of its corrupt, stupid and incompetent operators. Heck, they even claimed Juncker was put forward due to a democratic mandate and not due to a mind-blowing stitch-up!
Therefore even though things are not as I, a Remainer would wish at present I can fully understand and sympathise with those who suggest longer term the US is a better bet.
Cheers - food for thought. I do think individuals can have a massive impact in a short period of time, especially deeply flawed ones with immense power. That is where we are with Trump and, even putting the white supremacy etc to one side (which I don't really think we can or should), that's what really worries me about him. Planning to leave the single market (I really don't care about the EU, as such) at a time when an isolationist, protectionist US president is about to take office looks to me to be the height of folly.
As for location making a difference - why? I can talk to relatives across the globe online for free instantly. I can literally order from Amazon a replacement phone charger cable from China for pennies and have it delivered to my house from China the same week.
Location has never mattered less in history. It is only going to matter less and less going forwards too.
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?
48% support is not little.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
The either/or fallicy is as daft today as it always has been. There are good reasons for being close to both the US and to Europe -which is why precisely that policy has been pursued by the govt for over 50 years. But neither alliance is so important as to be unquestionable.
Well physically we are unquestionably part of Europe.
To paraphrase Dan Hannan from the referendum campaign - it's possible to love Europe yet dislike the EU, in pretty much the same way as it's possible to love football yet hate FIFA.
A great comment, from someone who speaks several languages and engages in European culture, without wishing to be ruled over by a corrupt and unelected elite bureaucracy, led by the likes of Junker and Tusk.
There is no hope if people cannot accept (or only begrudgingly accept) that we are physically part of Europe.
It's a fact. Location makes a difference, even in this crazy globalised world. Our policy needs to reflect that.
We are on the European continental shelf, we are not a part of continental Europe.
Complex questions. If the strategy is being devised by Boris Johnson, if that's the plan, then god help us. Perhaps George Osbourne could be put to use in the Foreign office.
I do wonder how long the Trump-Putin alliance will last. I mean, new US administrations always do a "reset their relations with Russia" thing; When Hillary Clinton started she actually had a little red button made that was supposed to say "reset" on it (although they bollocksed up the translation).
His foreign policy team is presumably going to be full of old foreign policy hawks from the Cold War, and in practice Russia is the main military opposition to the US, even when the US isn't trying to promote democracy.
What they have in common is that they're both prickly narcissistic, nationalistic authoritarians. But that doesn't feel like the perfect recipe for a harmonious long-term relationship.
Is Russia the main opposition to the US? That's a very Eurocentric view. China looks a more credible candidate for that title to me.
Somebody here linked to an outstanding article in the recent Atlantic. It's a very good primer for people who want to think more about the US China relationship.
Juncker is a powerless fool. Trump is an immensely powerful fool. Putin is not a fool. If the Americans pull out of Europe. We are subject almost entirely to the whims of the latter two. Juncker was, is and will always be an irrelevance.
It is far from certain that the office he holds will always be an irrelevance. Indeed, within ten years of Brexit its holder could easily be the most powerful person on the planet.
That will not be Juncker. However, on past disastrous form it will almost certainly be someone as bad. Equally, Trump and Putin may both be dead by then, and there is every likelihood Trump at least will be replaced by someone far better - it is eminently possible that Nikki Haley will be president. Russia may not even exist in its current form.
I am trying to say that getting worked up over personalities, no matter how flawed, is not a worthwhile pursuit. We should focus on systems. The US one has just gone boing, and this will almost certainly lead to some changes although for logistical reasons I expect them to be mostly tweaks not constitutional reform. The European one has always been shockingly bad and has only been made worse by the inept meddling of its corrupt, stupid and incompetent operators. Heck, they even claimed Juncker was put forward due to a democratic mandate and not due to a mind-blowing stitch-up!
Therefore even though things are not as I, a Remainer would wish at present I can fully understand and sympathise with those who suggest longer term the US is a better bet.
Planning to leave the single market (I really don't care about the EU, as such) at a time when an isolationist, protectionist US president is about to take office looks to me to be the height of folly.
You are still trying to denty the referendum vote. Futile. Get over it and move on.
Re the moaning of Leavers about the anti-brexit bias in the media. I don't think it's actively biased, it's more about the demographic of the media people. They tend to be posh, arts rather than science graduates and well ... basically a touch arrogant.
Why not bring in equality here? They have deliberately brought in black faces, female faces and disabled faces in the visual media. Why have they drawn the line at the plebs?
How about Guardian journalists being predominantly from state schools? How about MPs? In fact every part of the media? They're the first to trumpet their diversity. Why not walk the walk?
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
The logical response to Brexit is for the UK and the continuing EU to find a new modus operandi. The question is what happens if one or both parties is unable to construct a logical response. It is only then that the prospect of Britain withdrawing its security commitments to the Continent becomes a live issue.
I'm with the author on this one: if the EU is unable or unwilling to come to a decent agreement with us, then the British electorate will be entirely within its rights to question whether or not continuing to offer security guarantees to the Continent is justified.
If Trump essentially disbands NATO the UK can offer no security guarantees to Europe whether we want to or not. If he doesn't things will not change and we will remain part of NATO. Either way we have no negotiating position.
There is no hope if people cannot accept (or only begrudgingly accept) that we are physically part of Europe.
It's a fact. Location makes a difference, even in this crazy globalised world. Our policy needs to reflect that.
We are on the European continental shelf, we are not a part of continental Europe.
So what continent is Britain part of?
Already answered that, we are on the European continental shelf, so we are a part of the continent of Europe. We are NOT a part of continental Europe though, which is the major contiguous landmass on the continent that we are not physically connected to by land.
On Topic: The current situation is - 1) Most EU countries don't want to spend 2% of GDP on defense. 2) Putin wants to "influence" a large chunk of Eastern Europe. Including portions of the eastern EU. 3) European defense is provided by the US, the US, the US, the US. And Britain and France. 4) Various European politicians are therefore in the position of seriously disliking the provider of 80% of the their defense. 5) And gassing on about "punishing" the provider of another 10% or so, in economic terms. And, no, Germany spending 2% on a field army that can defend Germany and maybe Poland will not end the world as we know it.
All facts and a reality that escapes most, but one which Mr Herdson has grasped.
Juncker is a powerless fool. Trump is an immensely powerful fool. Putin is not a fool. If the Americans pull out of Europe. We are subject almost entirely to the whims of the latter two. Juncker was, is and will always be an irrelevance.
It is far from certain that the office he holds will always be an irrelevance. Indeed, within ten years of Brexit its holder could easily be the most powerful person on the planet.
That will not be Juncker. However, on past disastrous form it will almost certainly be someone as bad. Equally, Trump and Putin may both be dead by then, and there is every likelihood Trump at least will be replaced by someone far better - it is eminently possible that Nikki Haley will be president. Russia may not even exist in its current form.
I am trying to say that getting worked up over personalities, no matter how flawed, is not a worthwhile pursuit. We should focus on systems. The US one has just gone boing, and this will almost certainly lead to some changes although for logistical reasons I expect them to be mostly tweaks not constitutional reform. The European one has always been shockingly bad and has only been made worse by the inept meddling of its corrupt, stupid and incompetent operators. Heck, they even claimed Juncker was put forward due to a democratic mandate and not due to a mind-blowing stitch-up!
Therefore even though things are not as I, a Remainer would wish at present I can fully understand and sympathise with those who suggest longer term the US is a better bet.
Planning to leave the single market (I really don't care about the EU, as such) at a time when an isolationist, protectionist US president is about to take office looks to me to be the height of folly.
You are still trying to denty the referendum vote. Futile. Get over it and move on.
If Trump essentially disbands NATO the UK can offer no security guarantees to Europe whether we want to or not. If he doesn't things will not change and we will remain part of NATO. Either way we have no negotiating position.
Just to put it on record I think it's much more likely that Trump offers NATO membership to Russia and that they accept.
Well physically we are unquestionably part of Europe.
Geographically we are technically an island on the same continental shelf as Europe. That has certainly had a major impact on our political development - for example we are the only country in Europe that was not invaded by Napoleon (for the moment counting Ireland as a separate country, which technically it was until 1801) and therefore one of the few whose legal systems were not directly based on French Revolutionary era concepts as codified in the Napoleonic system.
That is of course one reason why we've always been so very ambivalent about the whole EU idea.
Tectonics will differ. The African plate created the Alps and Europe is - largely - an archipelago of the Asian plate. Only our Roman prejudices allows Europe to be consided a continent.
If Trump essentially disbands NATO the UK can offer no security guarantees to Europe whether we want to or not. If he doesn't things will not change and we will remain part of NATO. Either way we have no negotiating position.
Just to put it on record I think it's much more likely that Trump offers NATO membership to Russia and that they accept.
Juncker is a powerless fool. Trump is an immensely powerful fool. Putin is not a fool. If the Americans pull out of Europe. We are subject almost entirely to the whims of the latter two. Juncker was, is and will always be an irrelevance.
It is far from certain that the office he holds will always be an irrelevance. Indeed, within ten years of Brexit its holder could easily be the most powerful person on the planet.
That will not be Juncker. However, on past disastrous form it will almost certainly be someone as bad. Equally, Trump and Putin may both be dead by then, and there is every likelihood Trump at least will be replaced by someone far better - it is eminently possible that Nikki Haley will be president. Russia may not even exist in its current form.
I am trying to say that getting worked up over personalities, no matter how flawed, is not a worthwhile pursuit. We should focus on systems. The US one has just gone boing, and this will almost certainly lead to some changes although for logistical reasons I expect them to be mostly tweaks not constitutional reform. The European one has always been shockingly bad and has only been made worse by the inept meddling of its corrupt, stupid and incompetent operators. Heck, they even claimed Juncker was put forward due to a democratic mandate and not due to a mind-blowing stitch-up!
Therefore even though things are not as I, a Remainer would wish at present I can fully understand and sympathise with those who suggest longer term the US is a better bet.
Planning to leave the single market (I really don't care about the EU, as such) at a time when an isolationist, protectionist US president is about to take office looks to me to be the height of folly.
You are still trying to denty the referendum vote. Futile. Get over it and move on.
The referendum vote was a blunt instrument. It didn't decide what happens next and there are many decisions to be made. Accept that.
There is no hope if people cannot accept (or only begrudgingly accept) that we are physically part of Europe.
It's a fact. Location makes a difference, even in this crazy globalised world. Our policy needs to reflect that.
We are on the European continental shelf, we are not a part of continental Europe.
So what continent is Britain part of?
Already answered that, we are on the European continental shelf, so we are a part of the continent of Europe. We are NOT a part of continental Europe though, which is the major contiguous landmass on the continent that we are not physically connected to by land.
So we're part of Europe. Good. That was harder than it should have been.
There is no hope if people cannot accept (or only begrudgingly accept) that we are physically part of Europe.
It's a fact. Location makes a difference, even in this crazy globalised world. Our policy needs to reflect that.
We are on the European continental shelf, we are not a part of continental Europe.
So what continent is Britain part of?
Already answered that, we are on the European continental shelf, so we are a part of the continent of Europe. We are NOT a part of continental Europe though, which is the major contiguous landmass on the continent that we are not physically connected to by land.
So we're part of Europe. Good. That was harder than it should have been.
In the same way as Iceland is, an island not on the continental landmass, yes.
There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation 1 United States $596.0 bn 2 China $215.0 bn 3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn 4 Russia $66.4 bn 5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?
There is a remarkable amount of undue pessimism on this thread. It seems to be many people's reaction to continually being on the wrong side of history:
- left wing when leadership has abandoned all hope of winning elections - identity politics-centric when the common ground has finally rejected it - unable to move past the cold war paradigm
Trumpism is identity politics - as his appointment of white supremacists to senior positions demonstrates. Russian nationalism preceded the Cold War and has continued since its end. Jeremy Corbyn wants an end to NATO and supports Putin, just as he supports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.
Calling identity politics by appealing to a trope of left-wing identity politics isn't going to wash I'm afraid.
Trumpism is the end of offence, or rather, the end of there being a problem in being offended. I'm not surprised we're seeing it in America; the last two years of European politics has demonstrated that the cozy liberal post-war
Nope - white supremacy is about identity and it's been around for centuries, as the history of the US demonstrates only too clearly.
What is enlightening is how right wingers who rightly called foul over Corbyn Labour's anti-Semitism are perfectly content to accommodate Trump's racism. It shows their objections to Corbyn were not based on principle, but on partisanship. No surprise there, of course.
Lord - you made a virtual identical comment about 3 days ago. Obsessive what? Time to move on and deal with the new reality - screeching racism ain't gonna cut it.
Outrageous, Two comments in three days! Not only that, but two comments showing consistency. Good grief! World ends.
Careful - you'll have uniondivvie on your case for doing that, apparently it's not allowed to make a similar point, and you dare not acknowledge you do it with a joke either. For some reason.
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
Yes. You were right. It was obvious that a Brexit vote would put the logic of European security architecture under question. Indeed, this is why Putin was (is) a Brexiter. This is now coming to pass.
Sad that so many Brexiters literally would sacrifice our security in order to exit the EU. Clearly nothing is sacred. Indeed, if the Queen was suspected of Remainerism I would have no doubt the previously loyal, crown and country monarchists, would be baying for the guillotine.
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
The logical response to Brexit is for the UK and the continuing EU to find a new modus operandi. The question is what happens if one or both parties is unable to construct a logical response. It is only then that the prospect of Britain withdrawing its security commitments to the Continent becomes a live issue.
I'm with the author on this one: if the EU is unable or unwilling to come to a decent agreement with us, then the British electorate will be entirely within its rights to question whether or not continuing to offer security guarantees to the Continent is justified.
If Trump essentially disbands NATO the UK can offer no security guarantees to Europe whether we want to or not. If he doesn't things will not change and we will remain part of NATO. Either way we have no negotiating position.
Follow this argument through to its logical conclusion and EU states might as well not bother having any armed forces at all, because they are irrelevant: we are defended by the US and defenceless without it.
Makes you wonder why leading EU figures spend so long talking about joint defence initiatives when they are a total waste of time and money, doesn't it?
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
Yes. You were right. It was obvious that a Brexit vote would put the logic of European security architecture under question. Indeed, this is why Putin was (is) a Brexiter. This is now coming to pass.
Sad that so many Brexiters literally would sacrifice our security in order to exit the EU. Clearly nothing is sacred. Indeed, if the Queen was suspected of Remainerism I would have no doubt the previously loyal, crown and country monarchists, would be baying for the guillotine.
Brexit is a death cult.
Corbyn is a pro-Putin, anti-NATO Bexiteer. The left is merging into the right ever-more quickly and the Tories may end up giving Jeremy exactly what he wants.
Juncker is a powerless fool. Trump is an immensely powerful fool. Putin is not a fool. If the Americans pull out of Europe. We are subject almost entirely to the whims of the latter two. Juncker was, is and will always be an irrelevance.
It is far from certain that the office he holds will always be an irrelevance. Indeed, within ten years of Brexit its holder could easily be the most powerful person on the planet.
That will not be Juncker. However, on past disastrous form it will almost certainly be someone as bad. Equally, Trump and Putin may both be dead by then, and there is every likelihood Trump at least will be replaced by someone far better - it is eminently possible that Nikki Haley will be president. Russia may not even exist in its current form.
I am trying to say that getting worked up over personalities, no matter how flawed, is not a worthwhile pursuit. We should focus on systems. The US one has just gone boing, and this will almost certainly lead to some changes although for logistical reasons I expect them to be mostly tweaks not constitutional reform. The European one has always been shockingly bad and has only been made worse by the inept meddling of its corrupt, stupid and incompetent operators. Heck, they even claimed Juncker was put forward due to a democratic mandate and not due to a mind-blowing stitch-up!
Therefore even though things are not as I, a Remainer would wish at present I can fully understand and sympathise with those who suggest longer term the US is a better bet.
Planning to leave the single market (I really don't care about the EU, as such) at a time when an isolationist, protectionist US president is about to take office looks to me to be the height of folly.
You are still trying to denty the referendum vote. Futile. Get over it and move on.
The referendum vote was a blunt instrument. It didn't decide what happens next and there are many decisions to be made. Accept that.
"leave the single market" was Southam's complaint/whinge. This inevitable effect of leaving the EU was made very clear by the heads of the two official campaigns. So it is unnecessary to go on and on and on and on about it.
His presidency will be about him, not the country.
Have no fear. Nothing could be better for brand Trump than leaving a country physically transformed for the better. He's deadly serious about infrastructure spending, and given that it's what he knows best is likely to be something he gets dragged into spending most of his time overseeing.
Agree completely with that. And unlike most American politicians, who care most about how much money is spent and in which districts, Trump will measure success on the timely completion of the project!
The dynamic at work between Congressmen and the White House is going to be great fun to watch, I imagine that the President will be very quick to point out to everyone when things are being held up by pork-barrelling and petty politics.
Juncker is a powerless fool. Trump is an immensely powerful fool. Putin is not a fool. If the Americans pull out of Europe. We are subject almost entirely to the whims of the latter two. Juncker was, is and will always be an irrelevance.
It is far from certain that the office he holds will always be an irrelevance. Indeed, within ten years of Brexit its holder could easily be the most powerful person on the planet.
That will not be Juncker. However, on past disastrous form it will almost certainly be someone as bad. Equally, Trump and Putin may both be dead by then, and there is every likelihood Trump at least will be replaced by someone far better - it is eminently possible that Nikki Haley will be president. Russia may not even exist in its current form.
I am trying to say that getting worked up over personalities, no matter how flawed, is not a worthwhile pursuit. We should focus on systems. The US one has just gone boing, and this will almost certainly lead to some changes although for logistical reasons I expect them to be mostly tweaks not constitutional reform. The European one has always been shockingly bad and has only been made worse by the inept meddling of its corrupt, stupid and incompetent operators. Heck, they even claimed Juncker was put forward due to a democratic mandate and not due to a mind-blowing stitch-up!
Therefore even though things are not as I, a Remainer would wish at present I can fully understand and sympathise with those who suggest longer term the US is a better bet.
Planning to leave the single market (I really don't care about the EU, as such) at a time when an isolationist, protectionist US president is about to take office looks to me to be the height of folly.
You are still trying to denty the referendum vote. Futile. Get over it and move on.
The referendum vote was a blunt instrument. It didn't decide what happens next and there are many decisions to be made. Accept that.
"leave the single market" was Southam's complaint/whinge. This inevitable effect of leaving the EU was made very clear by the heads of the two official campaigns. So it is unnecessary to go on and on and on and on about it.
If it was inevitable why did so many Leavers support remaining a part of it?
On one thing both Cameron and Orban were proved entirely correct over -- the appointment of Junker.
And 26 countries voted in favour of him.
It is amazing that such an obviously unsuitable person was appointed President with almost unanimous support.
A wonderful gift for Leavers, though. The referendum was only just lost, and reformist President might be yet another thing that would have tipped the scales the other way.
Juncker is a powerless fool. Trump is an immensely powerful fool. Putin is not a fool. If the Americans pull out of Europe. We are subject almost entirely to the whims of the latter two. Juncker was, is and will always be an irrelevance.
It is far from certain that the office he holds will always be an irrelevance. Indeed, within ten years of Brexit its holder could easily be the most powerful person on the planet.
That will not be Juncker. However, on past disastrous form it will almost certainly be someone as bad. Equally, Trump and Putin may both be dead by then, and there is every likelihood Trump at least will be replaced by someone far better - it is eminently possible that Nikki Haley will be president. Russia may not even exist in its current form.
I am trying to say that getting worked up over personalities, no matter how flawed, is not a worthwhile pursuit. We should focus on systems. The US one has just gone boing, and this will almost certainly lead to some changes although for logistical reasons I expect them to be mostly tweaks not constitutional reform. The European one has always been shockingly bad and has only been made worse by the inept meddling of its corrupt, stupid and incompetent operators. Heck, they even claimed Juncker was put forward due to a democratic mandate and not due to a mind-blowing stitch-up!
Therefore even though things are not as I, a Remainer would wish at present I can fully understand and sympathise with those who suggest longer term the US is a better bet.
Planning to leave the single market (I really don't care about the EU, as such) at a time when an isolationist, protectionist US president is about to take office looks to me to be the height of folly.
You are still trying to denty the referendum vote. Futile. Get over it and move on.
The referendum vote was a blunt instrument. It didn't decide what happens next and there are many decisions to be made. Accept that.
"leave the single market" was Southam's complaint/whinge. This inevitable effect of leaving the EU was made very clear by the heads of the two official campaigns. So it is unnecessary to go on and on and on and on about it.
It's disingenuous to pretend that the non-EU single market option wasn't the promised land pushed by Eurosceptics for many, many years. That they didn't fight on this point in the referendum was simply conceding a point they knew they were no shaky ground on.
It is probably too early to be considering decisions about long-term strategic alliances. There are several unknowns, which should be clearer by this time next year, namely the outcome of the French & German elections and the nature of Brexit. For example, a new French president who is less sympathetic to NATO and the EU will change the situation.
It is important to recognise that Russia is part of the Christian West, whose main enemies are Islamism (Saudi Arabia and its acolytes as well as the Islamic terrorists in Mosul/Raqqa/East Aleppo) and China.
His presidency will be about him, not the country.
Have no fear. Nothing could be better for brand Trump than leaving a country physically transformed for the better. He's deadly serious about infrastructure spending, and given that it's what he knows best is likely to be something he gets dragged into spending most of his time overseeing.
It may surprise some on here, but I'm quite keen on infrastructure (cue cries of 'never!'). The US's infrastructure is in a dire state, and one of the good things about Trump since his win are his words about fixing it.
It also makes political sense: instead of massively disastrous projects such as Boston's Big Dig, spread the money around more.
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
The logical response to Brexit is for the UK and the continuing EU to find a new modus operandi. The question is what happens if one or both parties is unable to construct a logical response. It is only then that the prospect of Britain withdrawing its security commitments to the Continent becomes a live issue.
I'm with the author on this one: if the EU is unable or unwilling to come to a decent agreement with us, then the British electorate will be entirely within its rights to question whether or not continuing to offer security guarantees to the Continent is justified.
If Trump essentially disbands NATO the UK can offer no security guarantees to Europe whether we want to or not. If he doesn't things will not change and we will remain part of NATO. Either way we have no negotiating position.
Follow this argument through to its logical conclusion and EU states might as well not bother having any armed forces at all, because they are irrelevant: we are defended by the US and defenceless without it.
Makes you wonder why leading EU figures spend so long talking about joint defence initiatives when they are a total waste of time and money, doesn't it?
Clearly, if NATO goes Europe will need to spend much more on defence or appease Russia. Again, if that is the case, we have no negotiating position.
Juncker is a powerless fool. Trump is an immensely powerful fool. Putin is not a fool. If the Americans pull out of Europe. We are subject almost entirely to the whims of the latter two. Juncker was, is and will always be an irrelevance.
It is far from certain that the office he holds will always be an irrelevance. Indeed, within ten years of Brexit its holder could easily be the most powerful person on the planet.
That will not be Juncker. However, on past disastrous form it will almost certainly be someone as bad. Equally, Trump and Putin may both be dead by then, and there is every likelihood Trump at least will be replaced by someone far better - it is eminently possible that Nikki Haley will be president. Russia may not even exist in its current form.
I am trying to say that getting worked up over personalities, no matter how flawed, is not a worthwhile pursuit. We should focus on systems. The US one has just gone boing, and this will almost certainly lead to some changes although for logistical reasons I expect them to be mostly tweaks not constitutional reform. The European one has always been shockingly bad and has only been made worse by the inept meddling of its corrupt, stupid and incompetent operators. Heck, they even claimed Juncker was put forward due to a democratic mandate and not due to a mind-blowing stitch-up!
Therefore even though things are not as I, a Remainer would wish at present I can fully understand and sympathise with those who suggest longer term the US is a better bet.
Planning to leave the single market (I really don't care about the EU, as such) at a time when an isolationist, protectionist US president is about to take office looks to me to be the height of folly.
You are still trying to denty the referendum vote. Futile. Get over it and move on.
The referendum vote was a blunt instrument. It didn't decide what happens next and there are many decisions to be made. Accept that.
"leave the single market" was Southam's complaint/whinge. This inevitable effect of leaving the EU was made very clear by the heads of the two official campaigns. So it is unnecessary to go on and on and on and on about it.
If it was inevitable why did so many Leavers support remaining a part of it?
Because they're astonishingly terrible strategists.
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
Yes. You were right. It was obvious that a Brexit vote would put the logic of European security architecture under question. Indeed, this is why Putin was (is) a Brexiter. This is now coming to pass.
Sad that so many Brexiters literally would sacrifice our security in order to exit the EU. Clearly nothing is sacred. Indeed, if the Queen was suspected of Remainerism I would have no doubt the previously loyal, crown and country monarchists, would be baying for the guillotine.
Brexit is a death cult.
The last line's wrong, but it's funny how many (not all) of the Brexiters who talked about 'British values' and 'British sovereignty' are abandoning those lofty ideals with their support for Russian expansionism and attacks on judges doing their jobs.
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
Yes. You were right. It was obvious that a Brexit vote would put the logic of European security architecture under question. Indeed, this is why Putin was (is) a Brexiter. This is now coming to pass.
Sad that so many Brexiters literally would sacrifice our security in order to exit the EU. Clearly nothing is sacred. Indeed, if the Queen was suspected of Remainerism I would have no doubt the previously loyal, crown and country monarchists, would be baying for the guillotine.
Brexit is a death cult.
And New Zealand is missing a total, complete fool.
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
The logical response to Brexit is for the UK and the continuing EU to find a new modus operandi. The question is what happens if one or both parties is unable to construct a logical response. It is only then that the prospect of Britain withdrawing its security commitments to the Continent becomes a live issue.
I'm with the author on this one: if the EU is unable or unwilling to come to a decent agreement with us, then the British electorate will be entirely within its rights to question whether or not continuing to offer security guarantees to the Continent is justified.
If Trump essentially disbands NATO the UK can offer no security guarantees to Europe whether we want to or not. If he doesn't things will not change and we will remain part of NATO. Either way we have no negotiating position.
Follow this argument through to its logical conclusion and EU states might as well not bother having any armed forces at all, because they are irrelevant: we are defended by the US and defenceless without it.
Makes you wonder why leading EU figures spend so long talking about joint defence initiatives when they are a total waste of time and money, doesn't it?
Clearly, if NATO goes Europe will need to spend much more on defence or appease Russia. Again, if that is the case, we have no negotiating position.
Are the treaties which guarantee Finnish and Austrian neutrality appeasement? I don't think so. They arose for sound reasons at the time and aimed to increase/maintain security.
So why did NATO accept Baltic states or others with a border with Russia as members? It pretty well guarantees that a paranoid Russian leader looking west will feel under threat. It's hard to increase world security by reducing the perceived security of one's opponent.
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
The logical response to Brexit is for the UK and the continuing EU to find a new modus operandi. The question is what happens if one or both parties is unable to construct a logical response. It is only then that the prospect of Britain withdrawing its security commitments to the Continent becomes a live issue.
I'm with the author on this one: if the EU is unable or unwilling to come to a decent agreement with us, then the British electorate will be entirely within its rights to question whether or not continuing to offer security guarantees to the Continent is justified.
If Trump essentially disbands NATO the UK can offer no security guarantees to Europe whether we want to or not. If he doesn't things will not change and we will remain part of NATO. Either way we have no negotiating position.
Follow this argument through to its logical conclusion and EU states might as well not bother having any armed forces at all, because they are irrelevant: we are defended by the US and defenceless without it.
Makes you wonder why leading EU figures spend so long talking about joint defence initiatives when they are a total waste of time and money, doesn't it?
Clearly, if NATO goes Europe will need to spend much more on defence or appease Russia. Again, if that is the case, we have no negotiating position.
And after listening to that Luxembourg Lush, I'd be inclined to stop spending a fortune defending Europe too
Just had breakfast with one of the top guys at UBS, they are staying in London. Single market or not. No question of even transferring business to the continent, they will make do with whatever the government and City comes up with.
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
The logical response to Brexit is for the UK and the continuing EU to find a new modus operandi. The question is what happens if one or both parties is unable to construct a logical response. It is only then that the prospect of Britain withdrawing its security commitments to the Continent becomes a live issue.
I'm with the author on this one: if the EU is unable or unwilling to come to a decent agreement with us, then the British electorate will be entirely within its rights to question whether or not continuing to offer security guarantees to the Continent is justified.
If Trump essentially disbands NATO the UK can offer no security guarantees to Europe whether we want to or not. If he doesn't things will not change and we will remain part of NATO. Either way we have no negotiating position.
Follow this argument through to its logical conclusion and EU states might as well not bother having any armed forces at all, because they are irrelevant: we are defended by the US and defenceless without it.
Makes you wonder why leading EU figures spend so long talking about joint defence initiatives when they are a total waste of time and money, doesn't it?
Clearly, if NATO goes Europe will need to spend much more on defence or appease Russia. Again, if that is the case, we have no negotiating position.
Are the treaties which guarantee Finnish and Austrian neutrality appeasement? I don't think so. They arose for sound reasons at the time and aimed to increase/maintain security.
So why did NATO accept Baltic states or others with a border with Russia as members? It pretty well guarantees that a paranoid Russian leader looking west will feel under threat. It's hard to increase world security by reducing the perceived security of one's opponent.
The problem with Russia it that it tries to stir up the nations adjacent to it . It's important to send a message to Putin that he will not succeed.
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
The logical response to Brexit is for the UK and the continuing EU to find a new modus operandi. The question is what happens if one or both parties is unable to construct a logical response. It is only then that the prospect of Britain withdrawing its security commitments to the Continent becomes a live issue.
I'm with the author on this one: if the EU is unable or unwilling to come to a decent agreement with us, then the British electorate will be entirely within its rights to question whether or not continuing to offer security guarantees to the Continent is justified.
If Trump essentially disbands NATO the UK can offer no security guarantees to Europe whether we want to or not. If he doesn't things will not change and we will remain part of NATO. Either way we have no negotiating position.
Follow this argument through to its logical conclusion and EU states might as well not bother having any armed forces at all, because they are irrelevant: we are defended by the US and defenceless without it.
Makes you wonder why leading EU figures spend so long talking about joint defence initiatives when they are a total waste of time and money, doesn't it?
Clearly, if NATO goes Europe will need to spend much more on defence or appease Russia. Again, if that is the case, we have no negotiating position.
And after listening to that Luxembourg Lush, I'd be inclined to stop spending a fortune defending Europe too
Its not just cold cash though is it.
Do you think a lot of our European allies actually have the will to defend themselves?
I remember being mocked by Brexiteers on here before the referendum for saying that the geopolitical logic of Brexit is that it would tend to align our European interests with those of Russia. Now one of our most sober commentators is essentially arguing the same thing and suggesting putting our NATO commitment on the table might be appropriate. It's a funny old world.
Yes. You were right. It was obvious that a Brexit vote would put the logic of European security architecture under question. Indeed, this is why Putin was (is) a Brexiter. This is now coming to pass.
Sad that so many Brexiters literally would sacrifice our security in order to exit the EU. Clearly nothing is sacred. Indeed, if the Queen was suspected of Remainerism I would have no doubt the previously loyal, crown and country monarchists, would be baying for the guillotine.
Brexit is a death cult.
Corbyn is a pro-Putin, anti-NATO Bexiteer. The left is merging into the right ever-more quickly and the Tories may end up giving Jeremy exactly what he wants.
Corbyn is anti-US and, effectively, anti-UK. So is Putin. I wouldn't say Corbyn is pro-Putin per se, just that they have common interests, and clearly Corbyn believes taking shilling from RT is in some sense a lesser evil.
Congrats DH on this thread btw, it is long overdue. The security implications of Brexit were simmering away in the background and Trump just turned up the heat to max.
Let us not be naive about Putin, please. He is no a pleasant person and he runs a kleptocratic autocracy. His propaganda unit is very effective, as are his cyber capabilities. He is actively using both to tweak - or destabilise - the Western order.
I have no doubt that he is funding both UKIP and the SNP via back channels. I don't say this to invalidate either party, but simply to say that both parties further Putin's ends. It is a matter of record that Le Pen is funded by Russian interests, and Yokel of this manor has talked about Russian support for Trump.
All this doesn't mean we should be automatically hostile to Russia. Perhaps there is an opportunity to partner with them, even bring into NATO, but it is mighty hard to detente with a country when it is bombing Aleppo, downing Dutch passenger jets, and using proxies to invade the Ukraine.
Comments
Interesting piece, Mr. Herdson. It also raises the question of how India, China and Russia see things going forward, as well as the potential for the UK (both negative and positive).
Left wing racism - bad
Your hypocrisy is a thing of wonder.
Remainers seem to like, some indeed are obsessed with
- the check on our democracy that Europe has become
- the maintenance of a form of European economic protectionism that concurrently allows some claim to being outward looking and progressive
- the entirely ahistorical notion that we've a lot in common with continental Europe, despite having an entirely different legal system, philosophy of government and outlook towards the wider world
Many seem to associate more with the elites of other nations than they do with their fellow country-man. As a one nation Tory, this worries me deeply.
I have often thought the leaders of the EU are their own worst enemies. Juncker however is a bad one even by their standards, as he doesn't even have any brains (as his recent actions noted in the article confirm).
There's nothing unusual about that. Parties have coalitions of supporters.
Mr. Jonathan, you remind me of the Not The Nine O'Clock News Question Time sketch.
"Great Britain is not an island-"
"I'm afraid it is."
That is of course one reason why we've always been so very ambivalent about the whole EU idea.
We fundamentally disagree as to the notion of identity politics.
For you, apparently, we're all at it, for me, the very division of people into different identities based on a racial cleavage is farcical.
Also a lovely overnight comments thread, put a smile on my ugly morning face anyway.
Interesting thread Mr Herdson, thanks. – Just a couple of points, the UK remains committed to NATO and I do not see this relationship changing, irrespective of Brexit, or who sits in the White House. Not sure if you are implying that the UK could, or should use NATO as a bargaining chip in the negotiations, but if so, that would certainly be a new low for the country and best avoided. – Trump’s comments regarding member countries not paying their share in support of NATO are long overdue IMO, the EU27 cannot expect America to continue picking up the tab for their security and this maybe the kick up the arse they need. Finally, on the subject of Junker, he’s an arse of the first order and that will never change.
The crashing down of identity politics around you, perhaps?
- the check on our democracy that Europe has become - Europe over Britain
- the maintenance of a form of European economic protectionism that concurrently allows some claim to being outward looking and progressive - European economy over everything else
- the entirely ahistorical notion that we've a lot in common with continental Europe, despite having an entirely different legal system, philosophy of government and outlook towards the wider world European outlook on the world
A great comment, from someone who speaks several languages and engages in European culture, without wishing to be ruled over by a corrupt and unelected elite bureaucracy, led by the likes of Junker and Tusk.
Presumably all 52% are not in awe of the EU's political institutions, while only some of the 48% are. Realistically the evidence shows that the EU's political institutions are only beloved by a very tiny proportion of the UK.
:twitter-tramp:
It's a fact. Location makes a difference, even in this crazy globalised world. Our policy needs to reflect that.
In terms of those he is surrounding himself with - yes.
In terms of statements/speaches - of the saloon bar variety
In terms of actions - he had done business with clowns and shady characters of all races over the years.
It is worth noting that he is apparently less racist than Putin. Which isn't saying alot.
If this makes Europeans nervous that just might work to our advantage.
The current situation is -
1) Most EU countries don't want to spend 2% of GDP on defense.
2) Putin wants to "influence" a large chunk of Eastern Europe. Including portions of the eastern EU.
3) European defense is provided by the US, the US, the US, the US. And Britain and France.
4) Various European politicians are therefore in the position of seriously disliking the provider of 80% of the their defense.
5) And gassing on about "punishing" the provider of another 10% or so, in economic terms.
And, no, Germany spending 2% on a field army that can defend Germany and maybe Poland will not end the world as we know it.
Oh: The guinea-pigs and reconstructive surgery. Racal Ptarmigan and mobile communication. The internet; secure algorithms, ADA (for defeating Hillary).
Shall I continue gaijin or have you rescinded your comment whilst I compose this response...?
But Trump himself is a bit more complex - and IMO worrying - than that. If it was in his monetary interests to be anti-racist, he would be; fully and vehemently. It's not about right or wrong; its not about any ism. It's about what's good for brand Trump, or perhaps now Cult Trump.
This is why he could support the democrats just a few years ago, and says whatever seems best for him at the time. He also allies himself with whoever can further his personal aims, whatever their flaws.
His presidency will be about him, not the country.
That will not be Juncker. However, on past disastrous form it will almost certainly be someone as bad. Equally, Trump and Putin may both be dead by then, and there is every likelihood Trump at least will be replaced by someone far better - it is eminently possible that Nikki Haley will be president. Russia may not even exist in its current form.
I am trying to say that getting worked up over personalities, no matter how flawed, is not a worthwhile pursuit. We should focus on systems. The US one has just gone boing, and this will almost certainly lead to some changes although for logistical reasons I expect them to be mostly tweaks not constitutional reform. The European one has always been shockingly bad and has only been made worse by the inept meddling of its corrupt, stupid and incompetent operators. Heck, they even claimed Juncker was put forward due to a democratic mandate and not due to a mind-blowing stitch-up!
Therefore even though things are not as I, a Remainer would wish at present I can fully understand and sympathise with those who suggest longer term the US is a better bet.
I'm with the author on this one: if the EU is unable or unwilling to come to a decent agreement with us, then the British electorate will be entirely within its rights to question whether or not continuing to offer security guarantees to the Continent is justified.
Location has never mattered less in history. It is only going to matter less and less going forwards too.
If the strategy is being devised by Boris Johnson, if that's the plan, then god help us.
Perhaps George Osbourne could be put to use in the Foreign office.
Why not bring in equality here? They have deliberately brought in black faces, female faces and disabled faces in the visual media. Why have they drawn the line at the plebs?
How about Guardian journalists being predominantly from state schools? How about MPs? In fact every part of the media? They're the first to trumpet their diversity. Why not walk the walk?
I am very pro-NATO, but either the EU plays nicely, or the UK doesn't either.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce
Sad that so many Brexiters literally would sacrifice our security in order to exit the EU. Clearly nothing is sacred. Indeed, if the Queen was suspected of Remainerism I would have no doubt the previously loyal, crown and country monarchists, would be baying for the guillotine.
Brexit is a death cult.
Makes you wonder why leading EU figures spend so long talking about joint defence initiatives when they are a total waste of time and money, doesn't it?
The dynamic at work between Congressmen and the White House is going to be great fun to watch, I imagine that the President will be very quick to point out to everyone when things are being held up by pork-barrelling and petty politics.
FWIW my team works out of London, Berlin, New York and Beijing. It's far easier by far to work between London and Berlin.
Top tip don't call the guys in New York at 9am GMT, they get very cross.
And 26 countries voted in favour of him.
It is amazing that such an obviously unsuitable person was appointed President with almost unanimous support.
A wonderful gift for Leavers, though. The referendum was only just lost, and reformist President might be yet another thing that would have tipped the scales the other way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce
It is important to recognise that Russia is part of the Christian West, whose main enemies are Islamism (Saudi Arabia and its acolytes as well as the Islamic terrorists in Mosul/Raqqa/East Aleppo) and China.
It also makes political sense: instead of massively disastrous projects such as Boston's Big Dig, spread the money around more.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
So why did NATO accept Baltic states or others with a border with Russia as members? It pretty well guarantees that a paranoid Russian leader looking west will feel under threat. It's hard to increase world security by reducing the perceived security of one's opponent.
http://thaddeuswhite.weebly.com/writing-blog/the-map-of-denland
Thanks to the two PBers who helped out with the map.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/opinion/the-man-who-would-not-be-president.html?_r=0
But we are in this bind, for a while at least.
Do you think a lot of our European allies actually have the will to defend themselves?
So is Putin. I wouldn't say Corbyn is pro-Putin per se, just that they have common interests, and clearly Corbyn believes taking shilling from RT is in some sense a lesser evil.
Congrats DH on this thread btw, it is long overdue. The security implications of Brexit were simmering away in the background and Trump just turned up the heat to max.
Let us not be naive about Putin, please.
He is no a pleasant person and he runs a kleptocratic autocracy. His propaganda unit is very effective, as are his cyber capabilities. He is actively using both to tweak - or destabilise - the Western order.
I have no doubt that he is funding both UKIP and the SNP via back channels. I don't say this to invalidate either party, but simply to say that both parties further Putin's ends. It is a matter of record that Le Pen is funded by Russian interests, and Yokel of this manor has talked about Russian support for Trump.
All this doesn't mean we should be automatically hostile to Russia. Perhaps there is an opportunity to partner with them, even bring into NATO, but it is mighty hard to detente with a country when it is bombing Aleppo, downing Dutch passenger jets, and using proxies to invade the Ukraine.