If it was inevitable why did so many Leavers support remaining a part of it?
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
If it was inevitable why did so many Leavers support remaining a part of it?
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
If it was inevitable why did so many Leavers support remaining a part of it?
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
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.
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.
It may not have been wise. But the Baltics understandably wanted a security umbrella against a neighbour that had a long history of e expansionism. Russia is an empire, too, you know.
All this stuff about how NATO is a legitimate justification for Russia paranoia is a kind of pathetic armchair fascism dressed up as realpolitik.
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.
Yes, spot on. If America is lucky, his idea of his personal interests will coincidentally have beneficial results. They've rolled the dice.
But on topic - very interesting article. It's possible that the time has in fact come to review whether the old Cold War meme is still a useful guide. Putin is clearly not an attractive figure for most of us, but the world is full of people we're dubious about (do we prefer Trump or Putin personally? Er...). If Trump's presidency leads to the potential of a viable arrangement not involving permanent low-level confrontation, it might be worth giving it some serious consideration.
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.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Thanks to the two PBers who helped out with the map.
Galmouth looks a weak-point; behind the ridge and not well defended by Harlem Tor. Given the age of your Trebuchets and enhanced haddock elites your forces are surely depleted!
I recommend SoWo becomes your minister of defence-procurement. He will abvocate systems without defining any suitable solution for complex requirements: What can go wrong?
Russia and the USA were enemies 1946-1989 or thereabouts I guess. For the last 27 odd years we've been in a post cold war world, and perhaps assumed it would be ever thus... Though USA-Europe are still militarily joined at the hip. Nothing lasts forever though
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
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.
Total *and* complete?
Fair question:
"Total fool": Naturally behaves of the manner.
"Complete fool": Shows all the symptoms but is totally blind to them.
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.
Total *and* complete?
Fair question:
"Total fool": Naturally behaves of the manner.
"Complete fool": Shows all the symptoms but is totally blind to them.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
Essentially it's been stable for months. The AfD took about 8% off the CDU, the social democrats are a bit down, the Greens and Left a bit up, and the liberals look like getting back in over the 5% threshold. Overall her prospects look fairly good unless something else dramatic happens.
Incidentally, there's been a big slump in popularity in Denmark (up to a third of their support) for the anti-immigrant People's Party, partly driven by public concern about alleged misuse of EU Parliament funds. something that they take more seriously than UKIP voters seem to do. The centre-left have built a solid polling (yes, I know) lead, and the centre-right Government is looking at absorbing some centrist parties to try to stabilise the 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.
We are not legally committed to leaving the single market - what the various campaigns may or may not have said legally counts for diddly squat. The reason we are still arguing over the options is precisely because nothing is decided yet.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
The Leavers had a range of views on the subject, but the Remainers - from the PM down - were quite clear that a vote to Leave would mean leaving the Single Market.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Well, that's one view. The one Putin likes to propagate: Russia's the victim, it's other peoples' fault; they're showing strength against aggressors. But it's odd how the people who are the 'aggressors' are small, weak players; Georgia, Ukraine, Litvinenko, et al
You may remember a time eighty years ago when a world leader used similar arguments to invade neighbouring countries.
Litvinenko is one that should particularly concern us. The means of the assassination in London was particularly messy.
Oh, and your 'point' about MH17 is particularly sick.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
Your video didn't demonstrate that.
Some Brexiters argued for hard Brexit. Others argued for Brexit in name only, and Norway was recommended more than once. Mind you, Gove even suggested an Albanian model.
In return, Remainers listed everything that would be under threat - including the Single Market.
None of this proves we voted to leave the Single Market, or that it was widely understood that Brexit meant leaving the Single Market. Brexit means Brexit, nothing more or less.
Forget the he said, she said - and let's demand the government secures the best deal for the country.
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.
Cheers for the comment but I think you need to think through the consequences of your points.
You say that Trump's comments are long overdue. Perhaps so but what happens if the European states refuse to cough up. Either Trump was shown to be bluffing or the US will withdraw its commitment to abide by the NATO treaty. I wouldn't like to call it either way.
That of itself would change the UK's relationship with NATO because NATO itself would inevitably change massively if the largest member were to make their membership so conditional.
However, the Brexit process is also a dynamic factor. I'm not suggesting that the UK proactively make its NATO commitments part of the Brexit negotiations; I am suggesting that it's inevitable that they will become so if (1) Trump throws wide open the debate about what Nato is for and/or (2) if the rEU starts playing too silly about the UK's post-EU deal and threatens, or delivers, a serious and avoidable economic shock to the UK economy and its essential interests. Public and media pressure will see to that.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
LOL. This site is somewhat more informed than to blindly and unquestioningly accept the Kremlin's line.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
The Leavers had a range of views on the subject, but the Remainers - from the PM down - were quite clear that a vote to Leave would mean leaving the Single Market.
There is a difference between being in the single market and having access to the single market. Our aim should be the latter.
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.
An amazing stat from Cricinfo: England's 6th wicket has put on 1759 runs across all matches this year, which is more than any combination of two of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th wickets.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Where is this Christian West of which you speak? The only major Western country which cheerfully identifies as Christian is the USA. The rest of us have drifted into various degrees of vague agnosticism. Cameron's comment on his own religious feeling ("it comes and goes like radio reception in the Thames Valley") was pretty close to the norm.
As for the airliner, it clearly was brought down by pro-Russian separatists. I don't think they realised it was a civilian plane, nor do I think it should govern our policy in general, but it's better not to excuse it either as Someone Else's Fault.
It isn't so often that a morning thread produces such a delight of informed analysis and argument; congratulations David for lifting our eyes from the tactics of Brexit and Trump, if just for a while.
Some further thoughts on the debate:
- suggestions that China is not expansionist don't stack up; you just have to travel in Africa, or look at global financial markets. 21C expansionism doesn't necessarily need tanks (although they have plenty);
- some argue that in a post-Brexit post-NATO world our position will be more isolationist; others point to our relatively high military power. But in such a world we should either be Norway or Switzerland, saving a lot of money and relying on our famed 'soft' power, or work out what mission(s) the military spending might have. Is the pre-1939 role of ensuring the liberty of Central Europe now realistic?
- some leavers appear to be unnaturally obsessed with the personalities of key figures within the EU Commission. But the EU always was and will be driven by its principal nations; the commission is its slightly glorified admin department.
- the clearest irony is the emerging need for greater co-operation within Europe at just the time so many are pulling away from the existing model;
- geopolitics always was a lot to do with its principal personalities (we invaded Iraq primcipally because a son wanted to win an argument with the man who thumbed his nose at his father, after all) and with Trump that is likely to remain and become more true;
- history suggests we should be wary of supporting campaigns, people or parties that the Russians have decided it is in their interests to help pay for.
Bottom line is that it seems a lot easier to reject our previous role as a key player in Europe, but harder to fashion out (or achieve any consensus around) what our role might be going forward. Just as the world might be becoming rather more dangerous.
We are not legally committed to leaving the single market - what the various campaigns may or may not have said legally counts for diddly squat. The reason we are still arguing over the options is precisely because nothing is decided yet.
How do you propose we end EU contributions (to be spent on NHS or whatever else we choose), end ECJ jurisdiction, regain domestic control over legislation and control immigration etc ... while remaining in the Single Market?
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
The Leavers had a range of views on the subject, but the Remainers - from the PM down - were quite clear that a vote to Leave would mean leaving the Single Market.
There is a difference between being in the single market and having access to the single market. Our aim should be the latter.
We'd get access through the WTO so it's not much of an aim.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
Your video didn't demonstrate that.
Some Brexiters argued for hard Brexit. Others argued for Brexit in name only, and Norway was recommended more than once. Mind you, Gove even suggested an Albanian model.
In return, Remainers listed everything that would be under threat - including the Single Market.
None of this proves we voted to leave the Single Market, or that it was widely understood that Brexit meant leaving the Single Market. Brexit means Brexit, nothing more or less.
Forget the he said, she said - and let's demand the government secures the best deal for the country.
Name one Brexit campaign that argued to continue EU contributions please.
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.
That is true, but Obama was happy to pay lip-service to the pre-existing policy, to maintain the Nato structure and to not rock the boat. On that level, Trump marks a departure in form, if not in direction.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good morning! How's the weather in Moscow?
My surname does end in "sky", but I am in M/c, not Moskva.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
Your video didn't demonstrate that.
Some Brexiters argued for hard Brexit. Others argued for Brexit in name only, and Norway was recommended more than once. Mind you, Gove even suggested an Albanian model.
In return, Remainers listed everything that would be under threat - including the Single Market.
None of this proves we voted to leave the Single Market, or that it was widely understood that Brexit meant leaving the Single Market. Brexit means Brexit, nothing more or less.
Forget the he said, she said - and let's demand the government secures the best deal for the country.
Name one Brexit campaign that argued to continue EU contributions please.
Don't be an arse. Norway and Switzerland were help up as potential models, and both contribute to the EU directly or indirectly.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good morning! How's the weather in Moscow?
My surname does end in "sky", but I am in M/c, not Moskva.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
Insane racial foaming. Why is Islamism my number one threat? There have bee more people killed by dog attacks than Muslim terrorists in the UK in the last twenty years.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
The Leavers had a range of views on the subject, but the Remainers - from the PM down - were quite clear that a vote to Leave would mean leaving the Single Market.
There is a difference between being in the single market and having access to the single market. Our aim should be the latter.
We'd get access through the WTO so it's not much of an aim.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
Your video didn't demonstrate that.
Some Brexiters argued for hard Brexit. Others argued for Brexit in name only, and Norway was recommended more than once. Mind you, Gove even suggested an Albanian model.
In return, Remainers listed everything that would be under threat - including the Single Market.
None of this proves we voted to leave the Single Market, or that it was widely understood that Brexit meant leaving the Single Market. Brexit means Brexit, nothing more or less.
Forget the he said, she said - and let's demand the government secures the best deal for the country.
Name one Brexit campaign that argued to continue EU contributions please.
Don't be an arse. Norway and Switzerland were help up as potential models, and both contribute to the EU directly or indirectly.
Switzerland is outside the Single Market. The campaign's official model is that we should get our own deal (like Norway and Switzerland have deals) but one that doesn't include contributions.
That may not be achievable in negotiations but we should try for it. It IS what was debated by all sides.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
Your video didn't demonstrate that.
Some Brexiters argued for hard Brexit. Others argued for Brexit in name only, and Norway was recommended more than once. Mind you, Gove even suggested an Albanian model.
In return, Remainers listed everything that would be under threat - including the Single Market.
None of this proves we voted to leave the Single Market, or that it was widely understood that Brexit meant leaving the Single Market. Brexit means Brexit, nothing more or less.
Forget the he said, she said - and let's demand the government secures the best deal for the country.
Name one Brexit campaign that argued to continue EU contributions please.
and yet I would bet that we will continue to make EU contributions in some form or other as part of the final deal. Which kind of leads to the conclusion that the final deal is open to numerous options and everyone gets a say rather than us being committed to what some of the 52% think they voted for.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
The Leavers had a range of views on the subject, but the Remainers - from the PM down - were quite clear that a vote to Leave would mean leaving the Single Market.
There is a difference between being in the single market and having access to the single market. Our aim should be the latter.
Indeed, and two are becoming (deliberately I would say) confused in the eyes of those on both sides, to further their own agenda ahead of the negotiations.
Minimal-tariff access to the SM is pretty much covered under WTO rules.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good morning! How's the weather in Moscow?
My surname does end in "sky", but I am in M/c, not Moskva.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
Insane racial foaming. Why is Islamism my number one threat? There have bee more people killed by dog attacks than Muslim terrorists in the UK in the last twenty years.
Shall we bomb Battersea Dog's Home?
No but we have passed in the last 20 years the Dangerous Dogs Act etc so its not like its not being tackled.
I note you are only counting the UK so we are excluding all the attacks in Paris, New York, Washington, Brussels etc that could easily be repeated in London or Manchester or elsewhere.
They didn't during the campaign. The campaign had to take a side as to what Leave meant and they chose what we now call "hard Brexit" - end EU contributions, campaign for a new trade deal, end ECJ, control our sovereignty and control immigration. That is what Vote Leave said. The leading Leavers and Remainers on all sides made it crystal clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the Single Market. Couldn't have been clearer.
Just watched your video, the clips are undated so not sure if they were during the campaign after the decision was made to campaign for exiting the Single Market or before it. The campaign chose to go for full exit and that is what all sides debated. Also there are many comparisons with Switzerland.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
That I was told by Leavers during the referendum campaign that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market.
Your video didn't demonstrate that.
Some Brexiters argued for hard Brexit. Others argued for Brexit in name only, and Norway was recommended more than once. Mind you, Gove even suggested an Albanian model.
In return, Remainers listed everything that would be under threat - including the Single Market.
None of this proves we voted to leave the Single Market, or that it was widely understood that Brexit meant leaving the Single Market. Brexit means Brexit, nothing more or less.
Forget the he said, she said - and let's demand the government secures the best deal for the country.
Name one Brexit campaign that argued to continue EU contributions please.
and yet I would bet that we will continue to make EU contributions in some form or other as part of the final deal. Which kind of leads to the conclusion that the final deal is open to numerous options and everyone gets a say rather than us being committed to what some of the 52% think they voted for.
That's how negotiations work yes. The opening demands our government should open negotiations with is what we voted for though and yes there may be compromise but to not even try to get the full package, to not even propose it, is ludicrous.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good weather in St Petersburg?
Snowing by now I would think. Hope you read through the end of the last thread BTW, your adventurous day (well done by the way!) started quite the conversation overnight!
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good morning! How's the weather in Moscow?
My surname does end in "sky", but I am in M/c, not Moskva.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
Insane racial foaming. Why is Islamism my number one threat? There have bee more people killed by dog attacks than Muslim terrorists in the UK in the last twenty years.
Shall we bomb Battersea Dog's Home?
And far fewer people in the UK have been killed by Russians and yet you and others seem to hate the Ruskies like it's the height of the Cold War...
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?
What a waste of money , we could not beat a carpet
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.
An amazing stat from Cricinfo: England's 6th wicket has put on 1759 runs across all matches this year, which is more than any combination of two of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th wickets.
That's astonishing to see written down, even though it's obvious to anyone following England this year that our top order batsmen have been, umm, less than brilliant.
The work done on making the tail wag has been invaluable but needed in far too many matches - but it's not going to be enough against another top side like India.
Brexit is coming. That is now inevitable. The tide is coming in. The remaining Cnuts are few in number but make a lot of noise. Those even fewer who are crying foul need to remember ...
(1) In any election, most people take only peripheral notice of the ins and outs. It's always a broad brush feeling. (2) Many people will disagree with you for what appear (to you) to be totally misguided reasons. You may even think them undeserving of a vote. That is your problem, not theirs. (3) Lies, damn lies, and silly use of statistics will be prevalent, and on both sides. (4) Crying because you didn't get your way is behaviour of a seven-year-old. (5) One side will always have an edge because the media/establishment favour it. You have to live with it. (6) All these facts were true in 1975 as they are now. And in every GE we've ever had.
Basically, you have to accept the verdict and move on.
The LDs will gain more respect (and I speak as a former voter) by accepting the verdict. Then if they wish, they can campaign to re-join during the next GE campaign.
The opening demands our government should open negotiations with is what we voted for though
That would be a short negotiation indeed.
- We want to leave. - There's the door.
Philip Thompson is from the Brex-tard faction. I look forward to his next post on how we can cure cancer by standing outside the Cancer Research Institute and shouting very loudly.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good morning! How's the weather in Moscow?
My surname does end in "sky", but I am in M/c, not Moskva.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
Insane racial foaming. Why is Islamism my number one threat? There have bee more people killed by dog attacks than Muslim terrorists in the UK in the last twenty years.
Shall we bomb Battersea Dog's Home?
Defining threats purely by what kills you isn't an adequate way to assess things.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good morning! How's the weather in Moscow?
My surname does end in "sky", but I am in M/c, not Moskva.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
Insane racial foaming. Why is Islamism my number one threat? There have bee more people killed by dog attacks than Muslim terrorists in the UK in the last twenty years.
Shall we bomb Battersea Dog's Home?
And far fewer people in the UK have been killed by Russians and yet you and others seem to hate the Ruskies like it's the height of the Cold War...
It is always important to differentiate between dislike of a leader and of the population of that country. I dislike Putin intensely (oooh, that's put me on the list), but don't extend that dislike to the Russian people, who I quite admire. In a similar manner dislike of Trump shouldn't become dislike of Americans because he is their leader.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good morning! How's the weather in Moscow?
My surname does end in "sky", but I am in M/c, not Moskva.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
Insane racial foaming. Why is Islamism my number one threat? There have bee more people killed by dog attacks than Muslim terrorists in the UK in the last twenty years.
Shall we bomb Battersea Dog's Home?
And far fewer people in the UK have been killed by Russians and yet you and others seem to hate the Ruskies like it's the height of the Cold War...
I'm talking geo politics. You are taking about your navel, out of your arse, from the comfort of your padded cell.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good weather in St Petersburg?
Snowing by now I would think. Hope you read through the end of the last thread BTW, your adventurous day (well done by the way!) started quite the conversation overnight!
Thanks. Yes I did, I particularly appreciated being called a wimp on the basis of not wanting to start my married life with an avoidable argument with my MiL. I also think not asking permission would be dishonourable, I guess I'm still fairly traditional. A hundred quid for a baptism isn't exactly a big deal whether I believe in it or not is immaterial, I go to the temple once a year to appease my mum and she knows I don't believe in any of that claptrap. I'm sure my soon to be MiL has realised the same, the difference is that my partner was somewhat more religious than me when we met and het family is more religious than mine. I count myself lucky that they aren't Lutherans like most of Switzerland's Protestants.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good morning! How's the weather in Moscow?
My surname does end in "sky", but I am in M/c, not Moskva.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
Insane racial foaming. Why is Islamism my number one threat? There have bee more people killed by dog attacks than Muslim terrorists in the UK in the last twenty years.
Shall we bomb Battersea Dog's Home?
Defining threats purely by what kills you isn't an adequate way to assess things.
No, but it's better than wailing "Because Muslims" as you slowly soil your trousers, which is the stance of many on here.
Our biggest threat, in my view, is trade protectionism and the decline of liberal democratic values. Islamic terrorism is a rather nasty side show, one which is hopefully in decline, but has cost us rather more in blood (Iraq et al) than it ought.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good morning! How's the weather in Moscow?
My surname does end in "sky", but I am in M/c, not Moskva.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
Insane racial foaming. Why is Islamism my number one threat? There have bee more people killed by dog attacks than Muslim terrorists in the UK in the last twenty years.
Shall we bomb Battersea Dog's Home?
And far fewer people in the UK have been killed by Russians and yet you and others seem to hate the Ruskies like it's the height of the Cold War...
I'm talking geo politics. You are taking about your navel, out of your arse, from the comfort of your padded cell.
No you weren't, you were ranking threats by how many people in the UK had been killed. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in you claiming Russia is such big threat based on your own definition of a threat.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good weather in St Petersburg?
Snowing by now I would think. Hope you read through the end of the last thread BTW, your adventurous day (well done by the way!) started quite the conversation overnight!
Thanks. Yes I did, I particularly appreciated being called a wimp on the basis of not wanting to start my married life with an avoidable argument with my MiL. I also think noy asking permission would be dishonourable, I guess I'm still fairly traditional. A hundred quid for a baptism isn't exactly a big deal whether I believe in it or not is immaterial, I go to the temple once a year to appease my mum and she knows I don't believe in any of that claptrap. I'm sure my soon to be MiL has realised the same, the difference is that my partner was somewhat more religious than me when we met and het family is more religious than mine. I count myself lucky that they aren't Lutherans like most of Switzerland's Protestants.
Absolutely! Whoever said that is either single or just ran off to Gretna and didn't bother inviting the parents. We went for an Orthodox blessing in Kiev over the summer, following the wedding in my Catholic Chruch in Dubai last year - was a great experience and I know it meant a lot to my wife and especially her parents.
On the subject of the proposal, I had to write her father a letter and get it translated as I couldn't find enough Russian to have that conversation on the phone. He replied with a 1,000 word classical essay the following day, I had to wait for the translator to tell me if the answer was yes or no! That was somewhat nerve-wracking, as I'd already booked the hotel suite for the weekend! Luckily it was a yes, and the whole proposal story always goes down well with her family and friends
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good morning! How's the weather in Moscow?
My surname does end in "sky", but I am in M/c, not Moskva.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
Insane racial foaming. Why is Islamism my number one threat? There have bee more people killed by dog attacks than Muslim terrorists in the UK in the last twenty years.
Shall we bomb Battersea Dog's Home?
And far fewer people in the UK have been killed by Russians and yet you and others seem to hate the Ruskies like it's the height of the Cold War...
I'm talking geo politics. You are taking about your navel, out of your arse, from the comfort of your padded cell.
No, you were ranking threats by how many people in the UK had been killed. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in you claiming Russia is such big threat based on your own definition of a threat.
I was not ranking anything. I was making an argument reductio ad absurdum.
Please though, tell us all how Islamic terrorism is a major risk to you? I should have thought the lunatic asylums would be among the safest places in the event of a jihadist invasion.
Absolutely! Whoever said that is either single or just ran off to Gretna and didn't bother inviting the parents. We went for an Orthodox blessing in Kiev over the summer, following the wedding in my Catholic Chruch in Dubai last year - was a great experience and I know it meant a lot to my wife and especially her parents.
On the subject of the proposal, I had to write her father a letter and get it translated as I couldn't find enough Russian to have that conversation on the phone. He replied with a 1,000 word classical essay the following day, I had to wait for the translator to tell me if the answer was yes or no! That was somewhat nerve-wracking, as I'd already booked the hotel suite for the weekend! Luckily it was a yes, and the whole proposal story always goes down well with her family and friends
Lol, that sounds oddly like my best mate's experience. He had to have his BiL do the translating from English to Russian. One of the contentious points was that he was from a divorced household and his FiL wanted to know whether he was raised by a man or woman, but the BiL didn't want to ask that question because he is slightly more progressive than that.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good morning! How's the weather in Moscow?
My surname does end in "sky", but I am in M/c, not Moskva.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
Insane racial foaming. Why is Islamism my number one threat? There have bee more people killed by dog attacks than Muslim terrorists in the UK in the last twenty years.
Shall we bomb Battersea Dog's Home?
Defining threats purely by what kills you isn't an adequate way to assess things.
No, but it's better than wailing "Because Muslims" as you slowly soil your trousers, which is the stance of many on here.
Our biggest threat, in my view, is trade protectionism and the decline of liberal democratic values. Islamic terrorism is a rather nasty side show, one which is hopefully in decline, but has cost us rather more in blood (Iraq et al) than it ought.
I think the biggest threat to liberal democratic values comes, paradoxically, from many of those who think they are upholding them.
Trump might not be too impressed with the state of Britain's armed forces after several years of Tory cuts.
Yes, the lack of missiles on our destroyers does seem a bit ridiculous. One wonders what we're spending that 2% of GDP on.
Admirals, Generals and their champagne.
As previously mentioned we are getting AGM-158C LRASM - once it is finished and actually 100% working. It is in final trials now.
The problems in defense spending relate to converting the defense budget in to a no-questions-asked industrial support budget, while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The combination of increased defense costs, vast development programs and inadequate funding caused a massive crunch around 2005.
The current defense policy (since the start of the coalition) is quite interesting....
- The ridiculous speculative development programs (such as FRES) have been chopped.
- When buying abroad, all the usual make-work "local modifications" have been savagely denied. BAe hopefully pointed out that, when buying Airseeker (RC-135) surveillance aircraft that RAF flight suits hadn't been cleared to use on the aircraft. Yes, even the clothing the crew wears has to be checked - static issue, compatibility with emergency exist (snags etc). The MOD said "thank you" and bought some US flight suits to go with the aircraft.... Sadly, this denied BAe a program to work on...
- When buying systems, the emphasis has moved from "capability gaps" to buying fully working, top of the line equipment. For example, when Nimrod MPA was cancelled, the decision was taken not to spend billions on a half arsed temporary fix. Instead, RAF crews were sent (under Project Seedcorn) to train in the US on P-3 and the replacement P-8 which was still in development. After P8 had actually entered service, and the RAF crews had literally written a book on its abilities, *then* the decision was made to buy. The previous system would have been to get BAe to cobble together a super expensive "gap filler" which would then have had to soldier on because all the money was spent on that.
This has led to alot of anger and fear in the BAe/Procurement complex - I've actually encountered a civil servant, who because of Airseeker, felt that he wouldn't be able to get the job he *deserved* in industry. Because (and I quote) "Just buying things isn't interesting".
I originally thought security would be a strong card in a generally weak Brexit hand. however the very transactional approach Theresa May has been taking towards Brexit devalues it very significantly. The currency of security is commitment and confidence. Because you believe the other side will come to your help when you need it you value the security it provides. If you think it will just be a haggle over prosecco and the number of immigrants, you lose confidence, even if any military action is probably conditional when it comes to it.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
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.
The Islamic terrorist gangs in East Aleppo are enemies of the Christian West and need to be obliterated, just like those in Mosul and Raqqa. The downing of the Malaysian (not Dutch) airliner was a deliberate act of negligence by the Ukrainian authorities in routeing it over a war zone to create a tragic incident that could be blamed on Russia. The conflicts in the Ukraine are a consequence of the EU-promoted coup in Kiev in February 2014.
Good morning! How's the weather in Moscow?
My surname does end in "sky", but I am in M/c, not Moskva.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
Insane racial foaming. Why is Islamism my number one threat? There have bee more people killed by dog attacks than Muslim terrorists in the UK in the last twenty years.
Shall we bomb Battersea Dog's Home?
Defining threats purely by what kills you isn't an adequate way to assess things.
No, but it's better than wailing "Because Muslims" as you slowly soil your trousers, which is the stance of many on here.
Our biggest threat, in my view, is trade protectionism and the decline of liberal democratic values. Islamic terrorism is a rather nasty side show, one which is hopefully in decline, but has cost us rather more in blood (Iraq et al) than it ought.
I think the biggest threat to liberal democratic values comes, paradoxically, from many of those who think they are upholding them.
Well that's the current trendy view on the pro-Trump right. Meanwhile they vote for policies that are certainly not liberal.
I think safe spaces are garbage and identity politics is a toxic menace. But I don't think that justifies trashing the whole system. I know you are a good Conservative so I am sure you agree.
Absolutely! Whoever said that is either single or just ran off to Gretna and didn't bother inviting the parents. We went for an Orthodox blessing in Kiev over the summer, following the wedding in my Catholic Chruch in Dubai last year - was a great experience and I know it meant a lot to my wife and especially her parents.
On the subject of the proposal, I had to write her father a letter and get it translated as I couldn't find enough Russian to have that conversation on the phone. He replied with a 1,000 word classical essay the following day, I had to wait for the translator to tell me if the answer was yes or no! That was somewhat nerve-wracking, as I'd already booked the hotel suite for the weekend! Luckily it was a yes, and the whole proposal story always goes down well with her family and friends
Lol, that sounds oddly like my best mate's experience. He had to have his BiL do the translating from English to Russian. One of the contentious points was that he was from a divorced household and his FiL wanted to know whether he was raised by a man or woman, but the BiL didn't want to ask that question because he is slightly more progressive than that.
Ha, I didn't trust any friends to do it completely faithfully, and given that the wife is an only child and aged 36 at the time, thought that her father might want to take a breath before composing a considered reply rather than an immediate verbal response to the question! It turned out I was right, both in the method and the excecution, he was very happy his daughter would marry a traditional English gentleman who did things the proper way
I originally thought security would be a strong card in a generally weak Brexit hand. however the very transactional approach Theresa May has been taking towards Brexit devalues it very significantly. The currency of security is commitment and confidence. Because you believe the other side will come to your help when you need it you value the security it provides. If you think it will just be a haggle over prosecco and the number of immigrants, you lose confidence, even if any military action is probably conditional when it comes to it.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. I'm still in denial, and hoping May realises she is out of depth on foreign policy and has appointed Koko the Clown as foreign secretary*. Am praying she boots him and gets an adult in. It is sad, truly sad, that we are becoming seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
The US supported the EU and the EEC from the earliest days. At times it has basically been the "European Friends of the US Club" under another name. It's not the same as NATO but it was always pro-US and the US was always pro it. That's now changing, as US relations with China are now more important than their relations with the EU.
"Brexit" will be old hat if the EU ceases to exist, collapsing into a much smaller and much less grand economic alliance that would effectively be a deutschmark zone. Neither Britain nor France would be welcome in it. Germany would look south and, for strategic partnership, east.
I hope everyone's reading, because I'm going to come to betting implications soon.
The idea that Britain should or could fight Russia in the Baltic without US involvement is insane. It serves to promote weapons contracts - just read what the generals write; they sound like corporate public relations scum - but as a strategic idea it is insane. Count the megatonnage. Look at the energy dependencies. Unfortunately, when people repeat insane ideas they often start believing them. The idea that they could do it even with US involvement is also batshit. Look at the supply lines. Look at how Russia took down the internet in Estonia in 2007. NATO now have their cyberwarfare "centre of excellence" in Estonia, and putting it in such a far forward position when they are still way behind the Russians in cyber and info war is just a joke. But doubtless someone got some nice backhanders.
As I have said before, places such as Riga and Tallinn are now largely Russian, now that many young non-Russians from the Baltic states have migrated west as guestworkers. You also have to factor in that these countries, even though they joined NATO, never really left the Kremlin's sphere of influence. The fact that the KGB had excellent information on all the up-and-coming figures in that region at the end of the 1980s is almost enough to prove that point on its own. They also had excellent agencies in for example the Forest Brothers, as they do in the neo-Nazi scene in most of Europe, which makes it a bit rich when ~KGB propagandists use terms such as "eSStonia".
Anyway, it looks like bye-bye EU.
If this thesis is right, then the French National Front will continue to receive help from both Russia and the US. And I did say "continue".
Which makes Le Pen an amazingly good buy at 3.7.
Fillon is now at 4-4.2. I tipped him yesterday morning when his back price was 5.7. The New York Times are really pulling our plonkers when they call Juppé "an unlikely contender" who "rises in France as the antithesis of Trump". The election will be between Le Pen and Fillon and Le Pen will win. She may even win it outright in the first round. I couldn't care much what the polls say. A far more important indicator to watch is the influence of Breitbart in France.
Switzerland is outside the Single Market. The campaign's official model is that we should get our own deal (like Norway and Switzerland have deals) but one that doesn't include contributions.
That may not be achievable in negotiations but we should try for it. It IS what was debated by all sides.
Of course, even Canada makes a contribution to the EU for administering certain parts of CETA (albeit a very modest amount), and Mexico pays NAFTA administration fees to the US, so while we should ask for everything, discussion on this board should be about what is realistic rather than ideal.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves.
How did you reach the conclusion that Russia is a threat to Europe? Is Germany a threat to Switzerland? Is France a threat to Spain? Is the US a threat to Canada?
What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.
Switzerland is outside the Single Market. The campaign's official model is that we should get our own deal (like Norway and Switzerland have deals) but one that doesn't include contributions.
That may not be achievable in negotiations but we should try for it. It IS what was debated by all sides.
Of course, even Canada makes a contribution to the EU for administering certain parts of CETA (albeit a very modest amount), and Mexico pays NAFTA administration fees to the US, so while we should ask for everything, discussion on this board should be about what is realistic rather than ideal.
Agreed completely. There's a big difference between compromising on admin fees and seeking to remain full members.
Trump might not be too impressed with the state of Britain's armed forces after several years of Tory cuts.
Yes, the lack of missiles on our destroyers does seem a bit ridiculous. One wonders what we're spending that 2% of GDP on.
Admirals, Generals and their champagne.
As previously mentioned we are getting AGM-158C LRASM - once it is finished and actually 100% working. It is in final trials now.
The problems in defense spending relate to converting the defense budget in to a no-questions-asked industrial support budget, while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The combination of increased defense costs, vast development programs and inadequate funding caused a massive crunch around 2005.
The current defense policy (since the start of the coalition) is quite interesting....
- The ridiculous speculative development programs (such as FRES) have been chopped.
- When buying abroad, all the usual make-work "local modifications" have been savagely denied. BAe hopefully pointed out that, when buying Airseeker (RC-135) surveillance aircraft that RAF flight suits hadn't been cleared to use on the aircraft. Yes, even the clothing the crew wears has to be checked - static issue, compatibility with emergency exist (snags etc). The MOD said "thank you" and bought some US flight suits to go with the aircraft.... Sadly, this denied BAe a program to work on...
- When buying systems, the emphasis has moved from "capability gaps" to buying fully working, top of the line equipment. For example, when Nimrod MPA was cancelled, the decision was taken not to spend billions on a half arsed temporary fix. Instead, RAF crews were sent (under Project Seedcorn) to train in the US on P-3 and the replacement P-8 which was still in development. After P8 had actually entered service, and the RAF crews had literally written a book on its abilities, *then* the decision was made to buy. The previous system would have been to get BAe to cobble together a super expensive "gap filler" which would then have had to soldier on because all the money was spent on that.
This has led to alot of anger and fear in the BAe/Procurement complex - I've actually encountered a civil servant, who because of Airseeker, felt that he wouldn't be able to get the job he *deserved* in industry. Because (and I quote) "Just buying things isn't interesting".
Very good comment, yes the 'modern' MoD way of doing procurement is completely right and is saving taxpayers a fortune.
Yes the British military industrial complex are getting rather annoyed at us picking stuff off the shelf, but BAe should get on with selling their Hawk and Typhoon around the world, rather than trying to propose wasteful home spending on pet projects.
Less than a third of the population of the Baltic states is of Russian origin.
And those that I know (which I admit are among the higher paid and better educated ) as Genius Sports Group has big operations in both Estonia and Latvia, would much much rather be a part of the EU than the Russia Customs Union.
Switzerland is outside the Single Market. The campaign's official model is that we should get our own deal (like Norway and Switzerland have deals) but one that doesn't include contributions.
That may not be achievable in negotiations but we should try for it. It IS what was debated by all sides.
Of course, even Canada makes a contribution to the EU for administering certain parts of CETA (albeit a very modest amount), and Mexico pays NAFTA administration fees to the US, so while we should ask for everything, discussion on this board should be about what is realistic rather than ideal.
Canada are paying into the admin of the CETA deal, a few million whatevers. Contrast with those who are suggesting that the UK would pay close to the same as we do currently, several billion whatevers, in order to avoid the EU bureaucracy having to tap up other members for cash or reduce the scope of what they do after we've left.
Less than a third of the population of the Baltic states is of Russian origin.
And those that I know (which I admit are among the higher paid and better educated ) as Genius Sports Group has big operations in both Estonia and Latvia, would much much rather be a part of the EU than the Russia Customs Union.
The proportion is much higher in both Riga and Tallinn.
I originally thought security would be a strong card in a generally weak Brexit hand. however the very transactional approach Theresa May has been taking towards Brexit devalues it very significantly. The currency of security is commitment and confidence. Because you believe the other side will come to your help when you need it you value the security it provides. If you think it will just be a haggle over prosecco and the number of immigrants, you lose confidence, even if any military action is probably conditional when it comes to it.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. I'm still in denial, and hoping May realises she is out of depth on foreign policy and has appointed Koko the Clown as foreign secretary*. Am praying she boots him and gets an adult in. It is sad, truly sad, that we are becoming seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of "punishing" the UK for Brexit would have lead to military mobilisation... You don't threaten nation states economically and expect them to smile back at your from the naughty corner. Thankfully we live in more civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply demand x on the economic front and expect unlimited military support from the UK is simply bizarre. And the idea that this means that the UK is an "unreliable" partner is just as silly. It's about choices.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
Switzerland is outside the Single Market. The campaign's official model is that we should get our own deal (like Norway and Switzerland have deals) but one that doesn't include contributions.
That may not be achievable in negotiations but we should try for it. It IS what was debated by all sides.
Of course, even Canada makes a contribution to the EU for administering certain parts of CETA (albeit a very modest amount), and Mexico pays NAFTA administration fees to the US, so while we should ask for everything, discussion on this board should be about what is realistic rather than ideal.
Canada are paying into the admin of the CETA deal, a few million whatevers. Contrast with those who are suggesting that the UK would pay close to the same as we do currently, several billion whatevers, in order to avoid the EU bureaucracy having to tap up other members for cash or reduce the scope of what they do after we've left.
Absolutely agree. I'm just pointing out that demanding absolutely zero fees is also ridiculous.
Less than a third of the population of the Baltic states is of Russian origin.
And those that I know (which I admit are among the higher paid and better educated ) as Genius Sports Group has big operations in both Estonia and Latvia, would much much rather be a part of the EU than the Russia Customs Union.
The proportion is much higher in both Riga and Tallinn.
There is also a big Swedish financial presence.
Remind me how well anti EU parties did in the Euro elections in 2014
Switzerland is outside the Single Market. The campaign's official model is that we should get our own deal (like Norway and Switzerland have deals) but one that doesn't include contributions.
That may not be achievable in negotiations but we should try for it. It IS what was debated by all sides.
Of course, even Canada makes a contribution to the EU for administering certain parts of CETA (albeit a very modest amount), and Mexico pays NAFTA administration fees to the US, so while we should ask for everything, discussion on this board should be about what is realistic rather than ideal.
Canada are paying into the admin of the CETA deal, a few million whatevers. Contrast with those who are suggesting that the UK would pay close to the same as we do currently, several billion whatevers, in order to avoid the EU bureaucracy having to tap up other members for cash or reduce the scope of what they do after we've left.
Absolutely agree. I'm just pointing out that demanding absolutely zero fees is also ridiculous.
Indeed, as long as they are proportional to the costs in running the trade agreements and arbitration, rather than the EU budget as a whole.
I suggested earlier that a voluntary scheme of contributions by London banks wishing to avail 'Passporting' rights might raise some serious cash for the EU, on the basis that the contributions are seen to come from those banks participating, rather than the British taxpayer. That might make everyone happy.
I originally thought security would be a strong card in a generally weak Brexit hand. however the very transactional approach Theresa May has been taking towards Brexit devalues it very significantly. The currency of security is commitment and confidence. Because you believe the other side will come to your help when you need it you value the security it provides. If you think it will just be a haggle over prosecco and the number of immigrants, you lose confidence, even if any military action is probably conditional when it comes to it.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of "punishing" the UK for Brexit would have lead to military mobilisation... You don't threaten nation states economically and expect them to smile back at your from the naughty corner. Thankfully we live in more civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply demand x on the economic front and expect unlimited military support from the UK is simply bizarre. And the idea that this means that the UK is an "unreliable" partner is just as silly. It's about choices.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The "EU" is not who we are negotiating with. It is Germany, France, Italy etc. Some of our closest partners on economics and security through multiple agreements and institutions.
How we leave the EU matters. The tone we adopt matters, especially in an absence of any policy. Are we reliable? Can we be trusted? Brexit is immensely destabilisizing for everyone. We should not apologise, but we must least empathise. At the least, this is a good negotiating strategy. But beyond that, yes our influence rests on our being a stable, serious player. And influence does matter. A hundred thousand interests rest on our ability to influence.
In French personal ads, a man is keen to assure prospective romantic partners that he is "Un homme serieux" - a serious man - ie not a flaky deadbeat.
The U.K. right now does not appear to be in homme serieux. That's a huge pity, both in terms of our ability to get what we want from Brexit, and in as contrast to our long history of perceived geopolitical sobriety.
Switzerland is outside the Single Market. The campaign's official model is that we should get our own deal (like Norway and Switzerland have deals) but one that doesn't include contributions.
That may not be achievable in negotiations but we should try for it. It IS what was debated by all sides.
Of course, even Canada makes a contribution to the EU for administering certain parts of CETA (albeit a very modest amount), and Mexico pays NAFTA administration fees to the US, so while we should ask for everything, discussion on this board should be about what is realistic rather than ideal.
Canada are paying into the admin of the CETA deal, a few million whatevers. Contrast with those who are suggesting that the UK would pay close to the same as we do currently, several billion whatevers, in order to avoid the EU bureaucracy having to tap up other members for cash or reduce the scope of what they do after we've left.
Absolutely agree. I'm just pointing out that demanding absolutely zero fees is also ridiculous.
Indeed, as long as they are proportional to the costs in running the trade agreements and arbitration, rather than the EU budget as a whole.
I suggested earlier that a voluntary scheme of contributions by London banks wishing to avail 'Passporting' rights might raise some serious cash for the EU, on the basis that the contributions are seen to come from those banks participating, rather than the British taxpayer. That might make everyone happy.
I suggested similar, but was shot down by some of the nutjobs.
Trump might not be too impressed with the state of Britain's armed forces after several years of Tory cuts.
Yes, the lack of missiles on our destroyers does seem a bit ridiculous. One wonders what we're spending that 2% of GDP on.
Admirals, Generals and their champagne.
: :
This has led to alot of anger and fear in the BAe/Procurement complex - I've actually encountered a civil servant, who because of Airseeker, felt that he wouldn't be able to get the job he *deserved* in industry. Because (and I quote) "Just buying things isn't interesting".
Very good comment, yes the 'modern' MoD way of doing procurement is completely right and is saving taxpayers a fortune.
Yes the British military industrial complex are getting rather annoyed at us picking stuff off the shelf, but BAe should get on with selling their Hawk and Typhoon around the world, rather than trying to propose wasteful home spending on pet projects.
People have previously mentioned the Japanese. In fact their apparently low defense spending is achieved thus -
1) They pick a US system - Aegis, F15 fighters. 2) They price up building it largely in Japan. 3) They price up buying it from the US as is. 4) The defense budget gets charged (3), but they go for (2) 5) The actual cost (2) - is paid for by doing industrial support = 2-3 as a separate thing from defense budget.
The actual mechanism is a bit more complex - but essentially, the Japanese treat industrial support as a separate item.
MOD procurement can be summed up by the following story -
In Afghanistan, there was a massive problem with stoppages and jams with the 0.5" machine guns. The MOD at the time tried the spin that Ol' Ma Deuce was unreliable. It was, in fact caused by by buying cheap, crap ammo.
I talked to a civil servant about this - he banged on about value for money, best practise etc. When I pointed out that the issue was that rubbish propellant in the ammunition fouling the guns and this was an issue know to everyone who shoots (you can buy crap, cheap civilian ammo from the same sources).. he actually snapped and demanded if I wanted procurement done by "some gun nut?".
I then pointed out that the previous chap in charge of ammo procurement had been rather well known in the shooting world - did rather well at Bisley, and did his own hand loading. This ended the conversation.....
As previously mentioned we are getting AGM-158C LRASM - once it is finished and actually 100% working. It is in final trials now.
According to Wiki the C requires Mark-41 launcher. There is space on the T45 for these (or custom-fit into Sylver-45) but do we want the AAW-escort doing this?
So here is my question: Can the space left-over from the T23 CAMM upgrade accommodate 2*4 Mark-41 launchers? And what weapons-containment handling procedures would be required with such a small arsenal?
The opening demands our government should open negotiations with is what we voted for though
That would be a short negotiation indeed.
- We want to leave. - There's the door.
Philip Thompson is from the Brex-tard faction. I look forward to his next post on how we can cure cancer by standing outside the Cancer Research Institute and shouting very loudly.
As previously mentioned we are getting AGM-158C LRASM - once it is finished and actually 100% working. It is in final trials now.
According to Wiki the C requires Mark-41 launcher. There is space on the T45 for these (or custom-fit into Sylver-45) but do we want the AAW-escort doing this?
So here is my question: Can the space left-over from the T23 CAMM upgrade accommodate 2*4 Mark-41 launchers? And what weapons-containment handling procedures would be required with such a small arsenal?
Initially it will be hanging off the F35s we have in squadron service now. Lockheed are paying their own money to develop a single canister option (as opposed to using a VLS) - essentially a one-for-one replacement of existing Harpoon canisters which are used in many navies allied to the US.
I originally thought security would be a strong card in a generally weak Brexit hand. however the very transactional approach Theresa May has been taking towards Brexit devalues it very significantly. The currency of security is commitment and confidence. Because you believe the other side will come to your help when you need it you value the security it provides. If you think it will just be a haggle over prosecco and the number of immigrants, you lose confidence, even if any military action is probably conditional when it comes to it.
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
Very smart post. seen as an unreliable partner. A bathetic shadow of Trump.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
As a pragmatic Remainer I find the idea that we should unconditionally do things in the hope of "winning" influence quite strange.
In a different age, the talk of "punishing" the UK for Brexit would have lead to military mobilisation... You don't threaten nation states economically and expect them to smile back at your from the naughty corner. Thankfully we live in more civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply demand x on the economic front and expect unlimited military support from the UK is simply bizarre. And the idea that this means that the UK is an "unreliable" partner is just as silly. It's about choices.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
The UK makes no difference defence-wise to Europe. It's America alone that counts. If Trump pulls the US out of NATO then the whole of Europe, including us, has to make a choice: significantly more military spending or appeasement of Putin and fingers crossed. If things stay as they are then they stay as they are. Either way we have no serious negotiating position, let alone an advantage.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEDnB0raTQQ
Watch this. Six minutes in is the killer clip. Can't see how it could be clearer than that?
Nonsense, man. The only thing I've been sacrificing are goats, and that's about the entirely wholesome earning of Apollo's favour.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce
All this stuff about how NATO is a legitimate justification for Russia paranoia is a kind of pathetic armchair fascism dressed up as realpolitik.
But on topic - very interesting article. It's possible that the time has in fact come to review whether the old Cold War meme is still a useful guide. Putin is clearly not an attractive figure for most of us, but the world is full of people we're dubious about (do we prefer Trump or Putin personally? Er...). If Trump's presidency leads to the potential of a viable arrangement not involving permanent low-level confrontation, it might be worth giving it some serious consideration.
"We can't do this, we can't do that - it's too difficult, it might upset X."
I recommend SoWo becomes your minister of defence-procurement. He will abvocate systems without defining any suitable solution for complex requirements: What can go wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU
How many more similar episodes will it take before he gets sacked, or very probably he's unsackable.
Except Switzerland is outside the Single Market. So not sure what your point is?
"Total fool": Naturally behaves of the manner.
"Complete fool": Shows all the symptoms but is totally blind to them.
YMMV.
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Essentially it's been stable for months. The AfD took about 8% off the CDU, the social democrats are a bit down, the Greens and Left a bit up, and the liberals look like getting back in over the 5% threshold. Overall her prospects look fairly good unless something else dramatic happens.
Incidentally, there's been a big slump in popularity in Denmark (up to a third of their support) for the anti-immigrant People's Party, partly driven by public concern about alleged misuse of EU Parliament funds. something that they take more seriously than UKIP voters seem to do. The centre-left have built a solid polling (yes, I know) lead, and the centre-right Government is looking at absorbing some centrist parties to try to stabilise the position.
You may remember a time eighty years ago when a world leader used similar arguments to invade neighbouring countries.
Litvinenko is one that should particularly concern us. The means of the assassination in London was particularly messy.
Oh, and your 'point' about MH17 is particularly sick.
In return, Remainers listed everything that would be under threat - including the Single Market.
None of this proves we voted to leave the Single Market, or that it was widely understood that Brexit meant leaving the Single Market. Brexit means Brexit, nothing more or less.
Forget the he said, she said - and let's demand the government secures the best deal for the country.
You say that Trump's comments are long overdue. Perhaps so but what happens if the European states refuse to cough up. Either Trump was shown to be bluffing or the US will withdraw its commitment to abide by the NATO treaty. I wouldn't like to call it either way.
That of itself would change the UK's relationship with NATO because NATO itself would inevitably change massively if the largest member were to make their membership so conditional.
However, the Brexit process is also a dynamic factor. I'm not suggesting that the UK proactively make its NATO commitments part of the Brexit negotiations; I am suggesting that it's inevitable that they will become so if (1) Trump throws wide open the debate about what Nato is for and/or (2) if the rEU starts playing too silly about the UK's post-EU deal and threatens, or delivers, a serious and avoidable economic shock to the UK economy and its essential interests. Public and media pressure will see to that.
As for the airliner, it clearly was brought down by pro-Russian separatists. I don't think they realised it was a civilian plane, nor do I think it should govern our policy in general, but it's better not to excuse it either as Someone Else's Fault.
Some further thoughts on the debate:
- suggestions that China is not expansionist don't stack up; you just have to travel in Africa, or look at global financial markets. 21C expansionism doesn't necessarily need tanks (although they have plenty);
- some argue that in a post-Brexit post-NATO world our position will be more isolationist; others point to our relatively high military power. But in such a world we should either be Norway or Switzerland, saving a lot of money and relying on our famed 'soft' power, or work out what mission(s) the military spending might have. Is the pre-1939 role of ensuring the liberty of Central Europe now realistic?
- some leavers appear to be unnaturally obsessed with the personalities of key figures within the EU Commission. But the EU always was and will be driven by its principal nations; the commission is its slightly glorified admin department.
- the clearest irony is the emerging need for greater co-operation within Europe at just the time so many are pulling away from the existing model;
- geopolitics always was a lot to do with its principal personalities (we invaded Iraq primcipally because a son wanted to win an argument with the man who thumbed his nose at his father, after all) and with Trump that is likely to remain and become more true;
- history suggests we should be wary of supporting campaigns, people or parties that the Russians have decided it is in their interests to help pay for.
Bottom line is that it seems a lot easier to reject our previous role as a key player in Europe, but harder to fashion out (or achieve any consensus around) what our role might be going forward. Just as the world might be becoming rather more dangerous.
The bear needs to be handled with care, and not provoked, and treated as an ally against the West's principal enemy, namely Islamism in all its manifestations. Saudi Arabia is the head of this snake and is enemy number 1. It is responsible for the Islamic terrorist insurrection in Syria and Iraq.
Shall we bomb Battersea Dog's Home?
Is a great American phrase
That may not be achievable in negotiations but we should try for it. It IS what was debated by all sides.
Minimal-tariff access to the SM is pretty much covered under WTO rules.
I note you are only counting the UK so we are excluding all the attacks in Paris, New York, Washington, Brussels etc that could easily be repeated in London or Manchester or elsewhere.
Hope you read through the end of the last thread BTW, your adventurous day (well done by the way!) started quite the conversation overnight!
- We want to leave.
- There's the door.
The work done on making the tail wag has been invaluable but needed in far too many matches - but it's not going to be enough against another top side like India.
(1) In any election, most people take only peripheral notice of the ins and outs. It's always a broad brush feeling.
(2) Many people will disagree with you for what appear (to you) to be totally misguided reasons. You may even think them undeserving of a vote. That is your problem, not theirs.
(3) Lies, damn lies, and silly use of statistics will be prevalent, and on both sides.
(4) Crying because you didn't get your way is behaviour of a seven-year-old.
(5) One side will always have an edge because the media/establishment favour it. You have to live with it.
(6) All these facts were true in 1975 as they are now. And in every GE we've ever had.
Basically, you have to accept the verdict and move on.
The LDs will gain more respect (and I speak as a former voter) by accepting the verdict. Then if they wish, they can campaign to re-join during the next GE campaign.
I look forward to his next post on how we can cure cancer by standing outside the Cancer Research Institute and shouting very loudly.
But government and leaders are fair game.
You are taking about your navel, out of your arse, from the comfort of your padded cell.
Our biggest threat, in my view, is trade protectionism and the decline of liberal democratic values. Islamic terrorism is a rather nasty side show, one which is hopefully in decline, but has cost us rather more in blood (Iraq et al) than it ought.
On the subject of the proposal, I had to write her father a letter and get it translated as I couldn't find enough Russian to have that conversation on the phone. He replied with a 1,000 word classical essay the following day, I had to wait for the translator to tell me if the answer was yes or no! That was somewhat nerve-wracking, as I'd already booked the hotel suite for the weekend! Luckily it was a yes, and the whole proposal story always goes down well with her family and friends
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/chinas-great-leap-backward/505817/
Please though, tell us all how Islamic terrorism is a major risk to you? I should have thought the lunatic asylums would be among the safest places in the event of a jihadist invasion.
King Cole, I hope you're not suggesting the goats I sacrifice are impure?
The problems in defense spending relate to converting the defense budget in to a no-questions-asked industrial support budget, while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The combination of increased defense costs, vast development programs and inadequate funding caused a massive crunch around 2005.
The current defense policy (since the start of the coalition) is quite interesting....
- The ridiculous speculative development programs (such as FRES) have been chopped.
- When buying abroad, all the usual make-work "local modifications" have been savagely denied. BAe hopefully pointed out that, when buying Airseeker (RC-135) surveillance aircraft that RAF flight suits hadn't been cleared to use on the aircraft. Yes, even the clothing the crew wears has to be checked - static issue, compatibility with emergency exist (snags etc). The MOD said "thank you" and bought some US flight suits to go with the aircraft.... Sadly, this denied BAe a program to work on...
- When buying systems, the emphasis has moved from "capability gaps" to buying fully working, top of the line equipment. For example, when Nimrod MPA was cancelled, the decision was taken not to spend billions on a half arsed temporary fix. Instead, RAF crews were sent (under Project Seedcorn) to train in the US on P-3 and the replacement P-8 which was still in development. After P8 had actually entered service, and the RAF crews had literally written a book on its abilities, *then* the decision was made to buy. The previous system would have been to get BAe to cobble together a super expensive "gap filler" which would then have had to soldier on because all the money was spent on that.
This has led to alot of anger and fear in the BAe/Procurement complex - I've actually encountered a civil servant, who because of Airseeker, felt that he wouldn't be able to get the job he *deserved* in industry. Because (and I quote) "Just buying things isn't interesting".
I am guessing Germany in particular is coming to the conclusion that neither the US or Britain is reliable from their point of view. The US because interests are diverging particularly on Russia, which is a threat to Europe even if the US may not perceive it as a threat to themselves. So they are realising they need to beef up their own defence capabilities and those of Europe generally.
I think safe spaces are garbage and identity politics is a toxic menace. But I don't think that justifies trashing the whole system. I know you are a good Conservative so I am sure you agree.
*I also haboured secret hopes that Johnson would see down the naysayers and rise to the occasion. Disappointed again.
"Brexit" will be old hat if the EU ceases to exist, collapsing into a much smaller and much less grand economic alliance that would effectively be a deutschmark zone. Neither Britain nor France would be welcome in it. Germany would look south and, for strategic partnership, east.
I hope everyone's reading, because I'm going to come to betting implications soon.
The idea that Britain should or could fight Russia in the Baltic without US involvement is insane. It serves to promote weapons contracts - just read what the generals write; they sound like corporate public relations scum - but as a strategic idea it is insane. Count the megatonnage. Look at the energy dependencies. Unfortunately, when people repeat insane ideas they often start believing them. The idea that they could do it even with US involvement is also batshit. Look at the supply lines. Look at how Russia took down the internet in Estonia in 2007. NATO now have their cyberwarfare "centre of excellence" in Estonia, and putting it in such a far forward position when they are still way behind the Russians in cyber and info war is just a joke. But doubtless someone got some nice backhanders.
As I have said before, places such as Riga and Tallinn are now largely Russian, now that many young non-Russians from the Baltic states have migrated west as guestworkers. You also have to factor in that these countries, even though they joined NATO, never really left the Kremlin's sphere of influence. The fact that the KGB had excellent information on all the up-and-coming figures in that region at the end of the 1980s is almost enough to prove that point on its own. They also had excellent agencies in for example the Forest Brothers, as they do in the neo-Nazi scene in most of Europe, which makes it a bit rich when ~KGB propagandists use terms such as "eSStonia".
Anyway, it looks like bye-bye EU.
If this thesis is right, then the French National Front will continue to receive help from both Russia and the US. And I did say "continue".
Which makes Le Pen an amazingly good buy at 3.7.
Fillon is now at 4-4.2. I tipped him yesterday morning when his back price was 5.7. The New York Times are really pulling our plonkers when they call Juppé "an unlikely contender" who "rises in France as the antithesis of Trump". The election will be between Le Pen and Fillon and Le Pen will win. She may even win it outright in the first round. I couldn't care much what the polls say. A far more important indicator to watch is the influence of Breitbart in France.
Great post, but please elaborate on US support for the French National Front.
Cheers
What really scares me is how western figures have talked about building some kind of defence line along the eastern borders of the Baltic states. Usually this is mentioned without any reference to Kaliningrad.
Yes the British military industrial complex are getting rather annoyed at us picking stuff off the shelf, but BAe should get on with selling their Hawk and Typhoon around the world, rather than trying to propose wasteful home spending on pet projects.
Less than a third of the population of the Baltic states is of Russian origin.
And those that I know (which I admit are among the higher paid and better educated ) as Genius Sports Group has big operations in both Estonia and Latvia, would much much rather be a part of the EU than the Russia Customs Union.
There is also a big Swedish financial presence.
In a different age, the talk of "punishing" the UK for Brexit would have lead to military mobilisation... You don't threaten nation states economically and expect them to smile back at your from the naughty corner. Thankfully we live in more civilised times. But....
The idea that the EU can simply demand x on the economic front and expect unlimited military support from the UK is simply bizarre. And the idea that this means that the UK is an "unreliable" partner is just as silly. It's about choices.
If the EU wants to do punishment Brexit, then that will affect everything. If they want to do a moderate, negotiated Brexit, that will affect everything as well.
Europe as a whole has run defense spending down. In the near term they have a choice - Trump or Putin. And Putin is far worse than Trump - much more racist etc. In the longer term, they could attempt to rebuild a capability. Not say F*** O** to two major contributors to the existing security setup is not a sensible option...
Row blows up over fart in Parliament
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38037187
[not a Richard Burgon story]
I suggested earlier that a voluntary scheme of contributions by London banks wishing to avail 'Passporting' rights might raise some serious cash for the EU, on the basis that the contributions are seen to come from those banks participating, rather than the British taxpayer. That might make everyone happy.
How we leave the EU matters. The tone we adopt matters, especially in an absence of any policy. Are we reliable? Can we be trusted? Brexit is immensely destabilisizing for everyone. We should not apologise, but we must least empathise. At the least, this is a good negotiating strategy. But beyond that, yes our influence rests on our being a stable, serious player. And influence does matter. A hundred thousand interests rest on our ability to influence.
In French personal ads, a man is keen to assure prospective romantic partners that he is "Un homme serieux" - a serious man - ie not a flaky deadbeat.
The U.K. right now does not appear to be in homme serieux. That's a huge pity, both in terms of our ability to get what we want from Brexit, and in as contrast to our long history of perceived geopolitical sobriety.
1) They pick a US system - Aegis, F15 fighters.
2) They price up building it largely in Japan.
3) They price up buying it from the US as is.
4) The defense budget gets charged (3), but they go for (2)
5) The actual cost (2) - is paid for by doing industrial support = 2-3 as a separate thing from defense budget.
The actual mechanism is a bit more complex - but essentially, the Japanese treat industrial support as a separate item.
MOD procurement can be summed up by the following story -
In Afghanistan, there was a massive problem with stoppages and jams with the 0.5" machine guns. The MOD at the time tried the spin that Ol' Ma Deuce was unreliable. It was, in fact caused by by buying cheap, crap ammo.
I talked to a civil servant about this - he banged on about value for money, best practise etc. When I pointed out that the issue was that rubbish propellant in the ammunition fouling the guns and this was an issue know to everyone who shoots (you can buy crap, cheap civilian ammo from the same sources).. he actually snapped and demanded if I wanted procurement done by "some gun nut?".
I then pointed out that the previous chap in charge of ammo procurement had been rather well known in the shooting world - did rather well at Bisley, and did his own hand loading. This ended the conversation.....
So here is my question: Can the space left-over from the T23 CAMM upgrade accommodate 2*4 Mark-41 launchers? And what weapons-containment handling procedures would be required with such a small arsenal?