How do voting rights work in Germany? Just wondering if the 2m or so who have arrived in Merkel's flood can vote in federal elections. I'd guess not, but just wondering. If they do have voting rights, that's a lot of potential votes.
How do voting rights work in Germany? Just wondering if the 2m or so who have arrived in Merkel's flood can vote in federal elections. I'd guess not, but just wondering. If they do have voting rights, that's a lot of potential votes.
Very difficult.
We've had this discussion on PB before, it is very difficult to obtain German citizenship ergo voting rights.
Dave will quite happily give her advice on forming a successful coalition and how to play the black widow
Looking in more detail at those figures the AfD is now Germany's third largest party on 15 %
Given german polls consistently underreport AfD support, the question is will they overtake the SPD which is now down to 20% ?
It's an interesting question: why does the AfD seem to consistently beat its poll scores in actual elections, while the FN consistently falls short?
I'm guessing it's a combination of
- AfD still has the vilification factor being founded more recently than FN so there is a higher "shy" AfD factor ( FN has been around for 40 years ) - culturally the french don't mind being in your face so "overt" FN is overstated
The known drug dealer with the gun in a convoy of stolen cars. Yeah, okay.
What do you mean drug dealer in stolen cars....according to the family he was simply a dealer in legitimate high performance cars.
Most laughably is the claim by the family he wouldn't hurt a soul....despite being found innocent in a previous trial, recent events have included drive by shootings and story today of a very recent alleged incident where a woman had a gun held to her head.
The known drug dealer with the gun in a convoy of stolen cars. Yeah, okay.
I agree, the man was very unsavoury, but isn't it a bad precedent that the police can round someone up and shoot them like that? I suspect most instances where extra-judicial killings become commonplace start with people who 'had it coming'.
The known drug dealer with the gun in a convoy of stolen cars. Yeah, okay.
I agree, the man was very unsavoury, but isn't it a bad precedent that the police can round someone up and shoot them like that? I suspect most instances where extra-judicial killings become commonplace start with people who 'had it coming'.
Villains lives matter?
But, yes I agree it could be a slippery slope. I wonder why they thought they had to kill him?
Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.
You do know we haven't left yet, right?
You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?
1. Treasury predicts immediate trouble following Leave vote. 2. As vote nears, Treasury liaises closely with Bank of England about possible risks and actions post-vote. 3. Vote to Leave. 4. Bank of England lowers interest rates (attracting scathing criticism). 5. British consumer takes comfort that we are in safe hands and keeps spending.
The known drug dealer with the gun in a convoy of stolen cars. Yeah, okay.
I agree, the man was very unsavoury, but isn't it a bad precedent that the police can round someone up and shoot them like that? I suspect most instances where extra-judicial killings become commonplace start with people who 'had it coming'.
Maybe there was a link between drug dealing and funding terrorism? That would put it in a different perspective in my book. And to put that information out there could potentially put informants at risk. Just throwing it out there....
The known drug dealer with the gun in a convoy of stolen cars. Yeah, okay.
I agree, the man was very unsavoury, but isn't it a bad precedent that the police can round someone up and shoot them like that? I suspect most instances where extra-judicial killings become commonplace start with people who 'had it coming'.
The known drug dealer with the gun in a convoy of stolen cars. Yeah, okay.
I agree, the man was very unsavoury, but isn't it a bad precedent that the police can round someone up and shoot them like that? I suspect most instances where extra-judicial killings become commonplace start with people who 'had it coming'.
Given a gun was recovered from the car, unless the plod totally ignored all procedure and training, you have to presume that they did nothing of the sort of just "shoot them like that", rather there was a significant danger which required them to shoot one particular individual from the group that were stopped.
Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.
You do know we haven't left yet, right?
Do you think all those "experts" saying you are Michael Fish have forgotten that we haven't left?
Crikey what an oversight!
The 'Michael Fish' thing refers to the financial crash of 2008 and the prognostications (or lack of) surrounding it. I know we're all supposed to 'bored' with Brexit now, but as the post-Brexit solution hasn't even been specified yet, let alone agreed upon, I think it's fair enough not to declare closure on it quite yet.
Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.
You do know we haven't left yet, right?
You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?
1. Treasury predicts immediate trouble following Leave vote. 2. As vote nears, Treasury liaises closely with Bank of England about possible risks and actions post-vote. 3. Vote to Leave. 4. Bank of England lowers interest rates (attracting scathing criticism). 5. British consumer takes comfort that we are in safe hands and keeps spending.
Immaculate management IMO.
or alternatively, as their own man has said their forecasting team called the whole thing wrong and really there was no need to reduce rates
The known drug dealer with the gun in a convoy of stolen cars. Yeah, okay.
I agree, the man was very unsavoury, but isn't it a bad precedent that the police can round someone up and shoot them like that? I suspect most instances where extra-judicial killings become commonplace start with people who 'had it coming'.
I actually have faith in the British police not to just extrajudicially execute someone. There will be an IPCC report to the Coroner who will conduct an inquest, which is the way it should be.
Armed policeman know they will be held to account for discharging their own weapon, so there would have been a bloody good reason for it. A firearm was recovered from the car driven by the deceased, that much we do know.
BTW, has there been any decision on plod who was I believed put under criminal investigation after one of the turkish mafia were shot when trying to break some individuals out during a trial?
Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.
You do know we haven't left yet, right?
You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?
1. Treasury predicts immediate trouble following Leave vote. 2. As vote nears, Treasury liaises closely with Bank of England about possible risks and actions post-vote. 3. Vote to Leave. 4. Bank of England lowers interest rates (attracting scathing criticism). 5. British consumer takes comfort that we are in safe hands and keeps spending.
Immaculate management IMO.
or alternatively, as their own man has said their forecasting team called the whole thing wrong and really there was no need to reduce rates
Well we'll never know that, will we? There was a forecast, action was taken, all is well.
We can argue the toss over what might have, could have happened if if if, blah blah blah. But them's the facts.
Lets remember what Cameron and Osborne predicted would happen immediately after a Leave vote:
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
You keep posting that, for some strange reason.
Which bits of 'over two years' and 'compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU' do you struggle with?
Additional factoid about Operation Sealion. It was by far the largest German operation of WW2 in terms of men, materials, cost and prep effort. Larger even than Barabarossa. They just never got to execute it. In fact the drain it imposed upon the Germans was a significant reason for the delay in launching Barbarossa a year later. A year the Russians made use of.
Have you a link to the proposition that Sealion delayed Barbarossa? Not read anything like that myself. Since Sealion 'cost' nothing in terms of landforces & related materiel, and afaicr the Luftwaffe was actually larger by the beginning of 1941 than it was at the start of the BoB, I find it hard to believe.
That's not the way military operations work. Think of, for example, the Falklands War. How many troops? Only measured in thousands. What level of national, logistical effort and consumption to do it? Mahoosive. We would not have been bale to fight again in 1983.
For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.
Sealion also revealed that the Germans were incapable of amphibious combined arm operations. The Heer insisted that the Kriegsmarine dropped them here, here and here - because that's what the English land operation would have required. The Kriegsmarine said I can only drop you here, here or here because that's what the channel coastline dictates. Furious and unresolved arguments ensued. The Heer thought of the crossing as a big river event. The Kriegsmarine knew most of the barges wouldn't even arrive if there was any swell and even if they did most would arrive in Plymouth or Clacton, depending on the tidal flow.
Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability
Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.
You do know we haven't left yet, right?
You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?
1. Treasury predicts immediate trouble following Leave vote. 2. As vote nears, Treasury liaises closely with Bank of England about possible risks and actions post-vote. 3. Vote to Leave. 4. Bank of England lowers interest rates (attracting scathing criticism). 5. British consumer takes comfort that we are in safe hands and keeps spending.
Immaculate management IMO.
or alternatively, as their own man has said their forecasting team called the whole thing wrong and really there was no need to reduce rates
Well we'll never know that, will we? There was a forecast, action was taken, all is well.
We can argue the toss over what might have, could have happened if if if, blah blah blah. But them's the facts.
Mr T more than happy to move on and address the new realities but a lot of your remainy collegues seem to want to dwell on their past failures and just not let go.
Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.
You do know we haven't left yet, right?
You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?
1. Treasury predicts immediate trouble following Leave vote. 2. As vote nears, Treasury liaises closely with Bank of England about possible risks and actions post-vote. 3. Vote to Leave. 4. Bank of England lowers interest rates (attracting scathing criticism). 5. British consumer takes comfort that we are in safe hands and keeps spending.
Immaculate management IMO.
I'm surprised that Leavers didn't offer thanks to Osborne and Carney on bended knee, for doing their utmost to ameliorate the darkest repercussions of the Leave outcome. Osborne and Carney could have washed their hands of it and gleefully looked on as they were proven right. Instead they gave a lifeline to their own tormentors. It's actually a special form of altruism.
Increasingly it looks like if we just say "You were right" to the referendum losers, that may be enough to satisfy their vanity and get their egos onside
Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.
You do know we haven't left yet, right?
You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?
1. Treasury predicts immediate trouble following Leave vote. 2. As vote nears, Treasury liaises closely with Bank of England about possible risks and actions post-vote. 3. Vote to Leave. 4. Bank of England lowers interest rates (attracting scathing criticism). 5. British consumer takes comfort that we are in safe hands and keeps spending.
Immaculate management IMO.
I'm surprised that Leavers didn't offer thanks to Osborne and Carney on bended knee, for doing their utmost to ameliorate the darkest repercussions of the Leave outcome. Osborne and Carney could have washed their hands of it and gleefully looked on as they were proven right. Instead they gave a lifeline to their own tormentors. It's actually a special form of altruism.
Still reckon it would have been fun at the end of Dave's resignation speech on June 24th, Dave had gone all Adrian Veidt and said
I'm not a comic book villain. Do you seriously think I would explain my master stroke to you if there were even the slightest possibility you could affect the outcome? I triggered Article 50 35 minutes ago.
That's not the way military operations work. Think of, for example, the Falklands War. How many troops? Only measured in thousands. What level of national, logistical effort and consumption to do it? Mahoosive. We would not have been bale to fight again in 1983.
For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.
Sealion also revealed that the Germans were incapable of amphibious combined arm operations. The Heer insisted that the Kriegsmarine dropped them here, here and here - because that's what the English land operation would have required. The Kriegsmarine said I can only drop you here, here or here because that's what the channel coastline dictates. Furious and unresolved arguments ensued. The Heer thought of the crossing as a big river event. The Kriegsmarine knew most of the barges wouldn't even arrive if there was any swell and even if they did most would arrive in Plymouth or Clacton, depending on the tidal flow.
Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability
That doesn't really answer my question re. Barbarossa.
In any case, the Germans didn't build invasion barges so much as steal them. Looking at Wiki, they motorised 200 existing barges with obsolete aircraft engines -
'The Kriegsmarine later used some of the motorized Sea Lion barges for landings on the Russian-held Baltic islands in 1941 and, though most of them were eventually returned to the inland rivers they originally plied, a reserve was kept for military transport duties and for filling out amphibious flotillas.'
Additional factoid about Operation Sealion. It was by far the largest German operation of WW2 in terms of men, materials, cost and prep effort. Larger even than Barabarossa. They just never got to execute it. In fact the drain it imposed upon the Germans was a significant reason for the delay in launching Barbarossa a year later. A year the Russians made use of.
Have you a link to the proposition that Sealion delayed Barbarossa? Not read anything like that myself. Since Sealion 'cost' nothing in terms of landforces & related materiel, and afaicr the Luftwaffe was actually larger by the beginning of 1941 than it was at the start of the BoB, I find it hard to believe.
That's not the way military operations work. Think of, for example, the Falklands War. How many troops? Only measured in thousands. What level of national, logistical effort and consumption to do it? Mahoosive. We would not have been bale to fight again in 1983.
For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.
Sealion also revealed that the Germans were incapable of amphibious combined arm operations. The Heer insisted that the Kriegsmarine dropped them here, here and here - because that's what the English land operation would have required. The Kriegsmarine said I can only drop you here, here or here because that's what the channel coastline dictates. Furious and unresolved arguments ensued. The Heer thought of the crossing as a big river event. The Kriegsmarine knew most of the barges wouldn't even arrive if there was any swell and even if they did most would arrive in Plymouth or Clacton, depending on the tidal flow.
Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability
"A woman phoned up and said brexit will be a disaster. Don't worry, it won't"
Surely the joke is that this is an expert forecast, a la Michael Fish.
Yes, this is the BoE Chief Econonomist putting his own team in the same category as Mr Fish that fateful night in October 1987. Gerald Ratner would be proud.
Turns out the thickos were right and it really was all so much shit wasn't it.
You do know we haven't left yet, right?
You do know the Osborne predictions assumed Armageddon would start while we were still in, right ?
1. Treasury predicts immediate trouble following Leave vote. 2. As vote nears, Treasury liaises closely with Bank of England about possible risks and actions post-vote. 3. Vote to Leave. 4. Bank of England lowers interest rates (attracting scathing criticism). 5. British consumer takes comfort that we are in safe hands and keeps spending.
Immaculate management IMO.
or alternatively, as their own man has said their forecasting team called the whole thing wrong and really there was no need to reduce rates
Well we'll never know that, will we? There was a forecast, action was taken, all is well.
We can argue the toss over what might have, could have happened if if if, blah blah blah. But them's the facts.
Mr T more than happy to move on and address the new realities but a lot of your remainy collegues seem to want to dwell on their past failures and just not let go.
Amongst other challenges, the new reality includes:
1. how to rebase our economy away from consumption-driven growth; 2. how to rebalance asset prices; and 3. how to increase productivity.
IMO none of these things are going to be easier in the sink-or-swim environment of huge economic and political uncertainty that is Brexit.
That's not the way military operations work. Think of, for example, the Falklands War. How many troops? Only measured in thousands. What level of national, logistical effort and consumption to do it? Mahoosive. We would not have been bale to fight again in 1983.
For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.
Sealion also revealed that the Germans were incapable of amphibious combined arm operations. The Heer insisted that the Kriegsmarine dropped them here, here and here - because that's what the English land operation would have required. The Kriegsmarine said I can only drop you here, here or here because that's what the channel coastline dictates. Furious and unresolved arguments ensued. The Heer thought of the crossing as a big river event. The Kriegsmarine knew most of the barges wouldn't even arrive if there was any swell and even if they did most would arrive in Plymouth or Clacton, depending on the tidal flow.
Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability
That doesn't really answer my question re. Barbarossa.
In any case, the Germans didn't build invasion barges so much as steal them. Looking at Wiki, they motorised 200 existing barges with obsolete aircraft engines -
'The Kriegsmarine later used some of the motorized Sea Lion barges for landings on the Russian-held Baltic islands in 1941 and, though most of them were eventually returned to the inland rivers they originally plied, a reserve was kept for military transport duties and for filling out amphibious flotillas.'
This is hardly war effort draining stuff.
Every barge fitted out for Sealion was a barge not performing it's original duty of logistics. That translates into tons of raw materials being delayed to where they should go or needing alternate transportation.
The known drug dealer with the gun in a convoy of stolen cars. Yeah, okay.
I agree, the man was very unsavoury, but isn't it a bad precedent that the police can round someone up and shoot them like that? I suspect most instances where extra-judicial killings become commonplace start with people who 'had it coming'.
Villains lives matter?
But, yes I agree it could be a slippery slope. I wonder why they thought they had to kill him?
There's a set number of incidents in which lethal force is allowed, which essentially boil down to "facing an immediate threat to life". Given that firearms were recovered in the convoy, it's not hard to paint a mental picture. Had the known drug dealer with a criminal record not been killed, then there would still be an inquiry, the officers would still be taken off duty.
Last year, in several thousand deployments, firearms were used seven times in the UK.
Even with de Menezes and Duggan (and that guy from Uni who drank a lot, Saunders, him), the numbers involved are small. This is pretty much why its almost always all over the news.
Additional factoid about Operation Sealion. It was by far the largest German operation of WW2 in terms of men, materials, cost and prep effort. Larger even than Barabarossa. They just never got to execute it. In fact the drain it imposed upon the Germans was a significant reason for the delay in launching Barbarossa a year later. A year the Russians made use of.
Have you a link to the proposition that Sealion delayed Barbarossa? Not read anything like that myself. Since Sealion 'cost' nothing in terms of landforces & related materiel, and afaicr the Luftwaffe was actually larger by the beginning of 1941 than it was at the start of the BoB, I find it hard to believe.
That's not the way military operations work. Think of, for example, the Falklands War. How many troops? Only measured in thousands. What level of national, logistical effort and consumption to do it? Mahoosive. We would not have been bale to fight again in 1983.
For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.
Sealion also revealed that the Germans were incapable of amphibious combined arm operations. The Heer insisted that the Kriegsmarine dropped them here, here and here - because that's what the English land operation would have required. The Kriegsmarine said I can only drop you here, here or here because that's what the channel coastline dictates. Furious and unresolved arguments ensued. The Heer thought of the crossing as a big river event. The Kriegsmarine knew most of the barges wouldn't even arrive if there was any swell and even if they did most would arrive in Plymouth or Clacton, depending on the tidal flow.
Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability
Two posts which give much food for thought, Mr P. Not necessarily about the actual subject of the debate, but about the underlying management principles.
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
Additional factoid about Operation Sealion. It was by far the largest German operation of WW2 in terms of men, materials, cost and prep effort. Larger even than Barabarossa. They just never got to execute it. In fact the drain it imposed upon the Germans was a significant reason for the delay in launching Barbarossa a year later. A year the Russians made use of.
Have you a link to the proposition that Sealion delayed Barbarossa? Not read anything like that myself. Since Sealion 'cost' nothing in terms of landforces & related materiel, and afaicr the Luftwaffe was actually larger by the beginning of 1941 than it was at the start of the BoB, I find it hard to believe.
That's not the way military operations work. Think of, for example, the Falklands War. How many troops? Only measured in thousands. What level of national, logistical effort and consumption to do it? Mahoosive. We would not have been bale to fight again in 1983.
For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.
snip
Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability
It seems Hitler derided experts , who claimed to know about the Russian winter and didn't believe weather forecasters:
If misleading. I'd suggest what delayed Barbarossa was heavy support for the Italians in Greece (and concomitantly having to garrison those Yugoslavia and other places) and North Africa. The former involved, for example, effectively destroying Germany's airborne troop capability. The latter involved significant logistic effort.
Edit: it was also helpful for us (and that includes the Russians here) that German logistic capability was terrible. For example, they still put remarkable reliance on non-mechanised supply trains. Their military was, to a large degree all fur coat and no knickers.
Additional factoid about Operation Sealion. It was by far the largest German operation of WW2 in terms of men, materials, cost and prep effort. Larger even than Barabarossa. They just never got to execute it. In fact the drain it imposed upon the Germans was a significant reason for the delay in launching Barbarossa a year later. A year the Russians made use of.
Have you a link to the proposition that Sealion delayed Barbarossa? Not read anything like that myself. Since Sealion 'cost' nothing in terms of landforces & related materiel, and afaicr the Luftwaffe was actually larger by the beginning of 1941 than it was at the start of the BoB, I find it hard to believe.
That's not the way military operations work. Think of, for example, the Falklands War. How many troops? Only measured in thousands. What level of national, logistical effort and consumption to do it? Mahoosive. We would not have been bale to fight again in 1983.
For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.
snip
Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability
It seems Hitler derided experts , who claimed to know about the Russian winter and didn't believe weather forecasters:
One of the reasons Russia was caught by surprise by Barbarossa was that Stalin was monitoring wholesale wool prices in Germany and refused to believe his spies reports of impending attack as surely the Germans must purchase wool for winter clothing.
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
Additional factoid about Operation Sealion. It was by far the largest German operation of WW2 in terms of men, materials, cost and prep effort. Larger even than Barabarossa. They just never got to execute it. In fact the drain it imposed upon the Germans was a significant reason for the delay in launching Barbarossa a year later. A year the Russians made use of.
Have you a link to the proposition that Sealion delayed Barbarossa? Not read anything like that myself. Since Sealion 'cost' nothing in terms of landforces & related materiel, and afaicr the Luftwaffe was actually larger by the beginning of 1941 than it was at the start of the BoB, I find it hard to believe.
That's not the way military operations work. Think of, for example, the Falklands War. How many troops? Only measured in thousands. What level of national, logistical effort and consumption to do it? Mahoosive. We would not have been bale to fight again in 1983.
For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.
snip
Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability
It seems Hitler derided experts , who claimed to know about the Russian winter and didn't believe weather forecasters:
The known drug dealer with the gun in a convoy of stolen cars. Yeah, okay.
I agree, the man was very unsavoury, but isn't it a bad precedent that the police can round someone up and shoot them like that? I suspect most instances where extra-judicial killings become commonplace start with people who 'had it coming'.
I actually have faith in the British police not to just extrajudicially execute someone. There will be an IPCC report to the Coroner who will conduct an inquest, which is the way it should be.
Armed policeman know they will be held to account for discharging their own weapon, so there would have been a bloody good reason for it. A firearm was recovered from the car driven by the deceased, that much we do know.
That doesn't really answer my question re. Barbarossa.
In any case, the Germans didn't build invasion barges so much as steal them. Looking at Wiki, they motorised 200 existing barges with obsolete aircraft engines -
'The Kriegsmarine later used some of the motorized Sea Lion barges for landings on the Russian-held Baltic islands in 1941 and, though most of them were eventually returned to the inland rivers they originally plied, a reserve was kept for military transport duties and for filling out amphibious flotillas.'
This is hardly war effort draining stuff.
Every barge fitted out for Sealion was a barge not performing it's original duty of logistics. That translates into tons of raw materials being delayed to where they should go or needing alternate transportation.
Mebbes aye, mebbes no, but the original hypothesis was that the Germans 'built' an invasion fleet, part of an operation that was larger than Barbarossa in terms of 'men, materials, cost and prep effort', and that delayed the implementation of said Barbarossa. Cannae see it myself.
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
That is a small price for the EU to pay in order to preserve itself; after all, its prime raison d'etre is political, with the aim of ever closer union. For the UK, Brexit will be much graver from an economic perspective.
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
Really? You suggest that we will move to an autarkial economy?
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
Well....the logistical scale of Sealion vs Barbarossa is not my judgment, but that of history. I merely reflect what I read. Maybe you think they could have invaded the Soviet Union in the spring of 1941 despite the lack of transport capacity or engineering preparation? They could - but they'd have outrun their supply lines in a week. I haven't begun to talk about fuel logistics yet. Sealion prep swallowed a big chunk of the stockpile. That needed time to replace too. The putative invasion fleet was not 200 barges! It was thousands of various vessels, all of which needed to be moved, modified, fuelled and ready. And in the winter of 1940 the men and machines were in Northern France (or Norway), not eastern Poland. The simple truth is that massive military operations require massive logistical prep. Prep for one thing then you can't do another thing somewhere else anytime soon.
Clearly a Brexit voter. Eyes gleaming with racist bigotry, twisted mouth about to utter something unspeakable about immigrants, poor skin tone from total lack of quinoa.
Clearly a Brexit voter. Eyes gleaming with racist bigotry, twisted mouth about to utter something unspeakable about immigrants, poor skin tone from total lack of quinoa.
There's a little Indian lady on the other end of that see saw
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
That is a small price for the EU to pay in order to preserve itself; after all, its prime raison d'etre is political, with the aim of ever closer union. For the UK, Brexit will be much graver from an economic perspective.
So you think the EU can preserve itself while coming up with trade deals that don't include free movement with nations like Turkey and (belatedly) Canada but can't possibly come up with one with its single biggest customer, the United Kingdom?
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Scott joining Southam as being champion of dancing on the head of a pin.
BTW - it wasn't just those two (Cameron / Osborne) making the claims - I am pretty sure Scott knows all this but unfortunately that's not on his narrative.
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
That is a small price for the EU to pay in order to preserve itself; after all, its prime raison d'etre is political, with the aim of ever closer union. For the UK, Brexit will be much graver from an economic perspective.
Like the old Sino-Japanese war "joke".
Two Chinese generals talking about the campaign. One says to the other: you know that we are losing 1m troops a day while the Japanese are only losing 50,000.
To which the other one replies: pretty soon no more Japanese.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
More importantly, the economic implications are not the only consideration, either for us, or on the other side for the 27 other countries plus the Commission plus the EU parliament. In addition, the sheer political difficulty of getting agreement with such a complex set of counterparties is daunting. It is perfectly possible that we might jointly tumble into an outcome which is bad or very bad, in economic terms, for both sides.
Edit: I'd add that one of the most worrying aspects is that, from the public announcements at least, there seems to be remarkably little awareness of the risk to the Eurozone economies on the EU side. They seem to be very complacent - more so, indeed, than the UK is.
For those suffering from local election withdrawal symptoms - there was a by election yesterday in Ilkley South ward of Ilkley PC. Result was LD 429, Labour 171. LD gain from Green. Make of that what you will.
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
The Bank of England is independent.
Oh is it down to them to trigger A50? Get a move on Carney!
Hmm. They could have chosen to lower interest rates or not. They can raise them or not. The Treasury can't take their actions for granted which I think is what you implied when you said it (doom laden forecasts) "could have been avoided".
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
Scott joining Southam as being champion of dancing on the head of a pin.
BTW - it wasn't just those two (Cameron / Osborne) making the claims - I am pretty sure Scott knows all this but unfortunately that's not on his narrative.
Believe me, after his antics trying to get out of having a bet at 9/4 about Farage being in the debates, (what is 9/4?, what do you mean by "in the debates"?), then telling me I should thank him for being so right/saving me my money, I have seen this "opinion stated as fact/proved wrong/unable to admit it" show before.
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
I accept your reasoning but it would be both the EU and the UK who would suffer in the event of an impasse.
However the opportunities for developing new markets once free of the strangle hold of the EU are immense and especially as the pound's exchange rate will encourage trade. It is also important that we start to source more from the UK and reduce imports
I also believe that the EU and in particular the Baltic states need the military and security protection that we can provide
No matter the option of staying in the single market and taking no action to stop free movement of labour and exiting the ECJ is just not an option for HMG.
Yesterday we heard Chuka Umunna's committee accept that visa restrictions are needed and that all immigrants must speak or learn English. At the same time the Unite Union challenger has stated free movement of labour must end.
Add into that the surprising admission by Vince Cable that there must be an end to free movement of labour we are beginning to see a substantial cross party acceptance that free movement must end
The position of the UK vs the EU27 is like a phoney war at present; nothing much has happened. When Hard Brexit occurs (there is no realistic alternative, because the EU will punish the UK, pour encourager les autres), the economy will nose-dive and the currency will will collapse. The UK is living on borrowed money (it has a much higher total foreign debt to GDP ratio than the so called southern European "piggies") and no one will want to invest or deposit funds in the UK once it is "out in the cold". London will become a minor player in financial dealings. That is the price of "sovereignty".
And the EU loses 100 billion of trade.
While daodao is excessively pessimistic, the view that - as the creditor nation - it is the EU that is the only loser from Hard Brexit is fundamentally misguided. Germany can respond to lower external demand by increasing internal demand: i.e., lowering its excessively high savings rate and letting Germans be the ones to drive around in new Mercedes rather than Brits. We, on the other hand, have no such safety net.
That would ease the pain for their car companies, but not result in any gain for their economy would it? Meanwhile British consumers can buy a Jaguar made in Solihull if they so wish.
Remainers seem to be coming back to the fact that Brexit will fail because the underlying British economy is indepted, weak and only floating along on a bubble of misplaced trust - exactly. I don't want that any more, because in our out of the EU, it would have failed at some point. Better these things are faced up to now, and without the financial drain and increasing imposition of harmonisation that the EU represents.
you know that's not true and the evidence is there for all to see.
Link?
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
So Cameron and Osborne based their doom laden forecasts on scenarios that they knew could be avoided?
The Bank of England is independent.
Oh is it down to them to trigger A50? Get a move on Carney!
Hmm. They could have chosen to lower interest rates or not. They can raise them or not. The Treasury can't take their actions for granted which I think is what you implied when you said it (doom laden forecasts) "could have been avoided".
The doom laden forecasts, according to your friend Scott, were dependent on Article 50 being triggered, implying that the only reason we are not halfway to hell is because Dave didn't trigger it, despite promising he would
"Prior to Operation Barbarossa, the Nazis could have been certain that their invasion of Russia, which began on June 22, 1941, was in for a very cold winter.
It was a matter of simple statistical analysis, the kind at which Adolf Hitler's High Command was supposed to excel. But the German commissariat had hubristically not transported anything like enough woollen hats, gloves, long johns and overcoats to Russia."
We have all the supercomputers anyone could ask for dedicated to weather forecasting, and forecasts are now reliable to about 4 days out (a massive achievement, even if it doesn't sound like one, because forecasting anything is really, really difficult. So knowing anything by "simple statistical analysis" six months plus preparation time in advance is impossible now, never mind then.
What you have to realise is that expertise on any substantial question is always tentative. Like anyone with a PhD I am or have been the world's leading expert on one particularly abstruse and uninteresting topic, but I wouldn't bet the farm either on my judgment or on the consensus judgment of me plus the next 5 closest experts on the subject. And that's just consensus on the facts: consensus on a forecast (of anything) has so little value it is hardly worth attempting. Look at all the expertise poured out by (genuine) experts on steeplechasing on the National in the run up to Aintree. The result must be so clear before the race starts that there is hardly any point in running it - true or false? And if macro-economic forecasting is so easy, where are the experts' Lear jets? Banging on about Gove when he was essentially right is like repeating all those jolly funny gags about the cowardice of the French in staying out of Iraq.
Mr. Isam, nonsense. Castle Morris Dancer is impervious to zombies.
There's clearly a need in the defence budget for zombie-eating octo-lemurs - just in case. If only we knew of a source for such defenders of the realm....
Comments
On FN/AfD, maybe it's related to the acceptability of supporting a party. Particularly given Germany's still fixated on the shadow of WWII.
We've had this discussion on PB before, it is very difficult to obtain German citizenship ergo voting rights.
- AfD still has the vilification factor being founded more recently than FN so there is a higher "shy" AfD factor ( FN has been around for 40 years )
- culturally the french don't mind being in your face so "overt" FN is overstated
Most laughably is the claim by the family he wouldn't hurt a soul....despite being found innocent in a previous trial, recent events have included drive by shootings and story today of a very recent alleged incident where a woman had a gun held to her head.
Crikey what an oversight!
Bliar !
"A woman phoned up and said brexit will be a disaster. Don't worry, it won't"
But, yes I agree it could be a slippery slope. I wonder why they thought they had to kill him?
2. As vote nears, Treasury liaises closely with Bank of England about possible risks and actions post-vote.
3. Vote to Leave.
4. Bank of England lowers interest rates (attracting scathing criticism).
5. British consumer takes comfort that we are in safe hands and keeps spending.
Immaculate management IMO.
Either your being very dense .... or there is some other explanation for your rather important oversight.
What could it be?????
Armed policeman know they will be held to account for discharging their own weapon, so there would have been a bloody good reason for it. A firearm was recovered from the car driven by the deceased, that much we do know.
I don't buy it.
We can argue the toss over what might have, could have happened if if if, blah blah blah. But them's the facts.
Al-Qaeda leader blasts rival jihadist group ISIS as 'liars'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4093204/Al-Qaeda-chief-denounces-Islamic-State-liars.html
with him gone, confidence has reurned to the nation's businesses and consumers and we are heading to the oft promised sunny uplands
just saying :-)
Which bits of 'over two years' and 'compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU' do you struggle with?
For example the Germans built a huge number of transport barges powered with aircraft engines. This tied up a lot of steel and engines. That steel couldn't overnight be turned back into tanks. Nor the engines removed, repackaged, transported and put into aircraft. (mostly they were sunk in French harbours by the RAF anyway - Bomber Command wasn't having a holiday while the fighters became famous). The Wehrmacht engineer corps did nothing else from May to October 1940 - all wasted. The canals and water transport system of Europe was drained of suitable vessels to mount a crossing. Much ended up sunk with the barges. Huge arguments ensued because it fucked up the transport capacity for months.
Sealion also revealed that the Germans were incapable of amphibious combined arm operations. The Heer insisted that the Kriegsmarine dropped them here, here and here - because that's what the English land operation would have required. The Kriegsmarine said I can only drop you here, here or here because that's what the channel coastline dictates. Furious and unresolved arguments ensued. The Heer thought of the crossing as a big river event. The Kriegsmarine knew most of the barges wouldn't even arrive if there was any swell and even if they did most would arrive in Plymouth or Clacton, depending on the tidal flow.
Armchair generals think only of tactics and weapons. True generals are forced to think first of recruiting, training, housing, clothing, arming, transporting, feeding, resupplying, replacing, etc. In order to win you need to turn up. The Germans excelled at weapons and tactics. Sealion revealed some much deeper strategic and organisational holes in the Wehrmacht's capability
Or we could dip their dummies in some whiskey?
I'm not a comic book villain. Do you seriously think I would explain my master stroke to you if there were even the slightest possibility you could affect the outcome? I triggered Article 50 35 minutes ago.
In any case, the Germans didn't build invasion barges so much as steal them. Looking at Wiki, they motorised 200 existing barges with obsolete aircraft engines -
'The Kriegsmarine later used some of the motorized Sea Lion barges for landings on the Russian-held Baltic islands in 1941 and, though most of them were eventually returned to the inland rivers they originally plied, a reserve was kept for military transport duties and for filling out amphibious flotillas.'
This is hardly war effort draining stuff.
1. how to rebase our economy away from consumption-driven growth;
2. how to rebalance asset prices; and
3. how to increase productivity.
IMO none of these things are going to be easier in the sink-or-swim environment of huge economic and political uncertainty that is Brexit.
You would have fitted in with New Labour rather well.
Last year, in several thousand deployments, firearms were used seven times in the UK.
Even with de Menezes and Duggan (and that guy from Uni who drank a lot, Saunders, him), the numbers involved are small. This is pretty much why its almost always all over the news.
The evidence, such as it exists, points to all forecasts being based on an immediate Article 50 trigger.
Which, as you know, didn't happen
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/5907564/Second-World-War-Frozen-to-death-by-the-Fuhrer.html
If misleading. I'd suggest what delayed Barbarossa was heavy support for the Italians in Greece (and concomitantly having to garrison those Yugoslavia and other places) and North Africa. The former involved, for example, effectively destroying Germany's airborne troop capability. The latter involved significant logistic effort.
Edit: it was also helpful for us (and that includes the Russians here) that German logistic capability was terrible. For example, they still put remarkable reliance on non-mechanised supply trains. Their military was, to a large degree all fur coat and no knickers.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/23/best-pm-cameron-lead-14/
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/axuqr6j92z/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-Perceptions-220415.pdf
Now, I've gone for a single data point when there were DKs of 39 in 2012 - mid-February
Cameron 37 %
Miliband 19 %
Clegg 6 %
Don't Knows 39 %
By the time the election came around, after 5 years of cuts and government and all that, they had split. Just by, well, not very much.
Cameron 40 %
Miliband 29 %
Clegg 6 %
Don't Knows 27 %
The problem isn't that they're going to split favorably or otherwise, it's that they're really not going to split much at all.
Cannae see it myself.
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/816971603410034692
Well....the logistical scale of Sealion vs Barbarossa is not my judgment, but that of history. I merely reflect what I read. Maybe you think they could have invaded the Soviet Union in the spring of 1941 despite the lack of transport capacity or engineering preparation? They could - but they'd have outrun their supply lines in a week. I haven't begun to talk about fuel logistics yet. Sealion prep swallowed a big chunk of the stockpile. That needed time to replace too. The putative invasion fleet was not 200 barges! It was thousands of various vessels, all of which needed to be moved, modified, fuelled and ready. And in the winter of 1940 the men and machines were in Northern France (or Norway), not eastern Poland. The simple truth is that massive military operations require massive logistical prep. Prep for one thing then you can't do another thing somewhere else anytime soon.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/26/22/349B039100000578-0-Operation_Black_Vote_sparked_outrage_yesterday_after_releasing_a-m-7_1464299538908.jpg
Heard that somewhere before, how did that work out again?
Sadly, we all know that downturns happen, they are a part of the economic cycle.
One will come along sooner or later and then ... it will all be the fault of Brexit, Article 50 being triggered or not.
If so the EU doesn't deserve to preserve itself.
BTW - it wasn't just those two (Cameron / Osborne) making the claims - I am pretty sure Scott knows all this but unfortunately that's not on his narrative.
Two Chinese generals talking about the campaign. One says to the other: you know that we are losing 1m troops a day while the Japanese are only losing 50,000.
To which the other one replies: pretty soon no more Japanese.
Edit: I'd add that one of the most worrying aspects is that, from the public announcements at least, there seems to be remarkably little awareness of the risk to the Eurozone economies on the EU side. They seem to be very complacent - more so, indeed, than the UK is.
See also Monty Hall.
However the opportunities for developing new markets once free of the strangle hold of the EU are immense and especially as the pound's exchange rate will encourage trade. It is also important that we start to source more from the UK and reduce imports
I also believe that the EU and in particular the Baltic states need the military and security protection that we can provide
No matter the option of staying in the single market and taking no action to stop free movement of labour and exiting the ECJ is just not an option for HMG.
Yesterday we heard Chuka Umunna's committee accept that visa restrictions are needed and that all immigrants must speak or learn English. At the same time the Unite Union challenger has stated free movement of labour must end.
Add into that the surprising admission by Vince Cable that there must be an end to free movement of labour we are beginning to see a substantial cross party acceptance that free movement must end
http://order-order.com/2016/09/05/services-pmi-strong/
Remainers seem to be coming back to the fact that Brexit will fail because the underlying British economy is indepted, weak and only floating along on a bubble of misplaced trust - exactly. I don't want that any more, because in our out of the EU, it would have failed at some point. Better these things are faced up to now, and without the financial drain and increasing imposition of harmonisation that the EU represents.
Jamie Oliver’s closing restaurants as times get tougher.
Just saying.
@politicshome: EXCL Shami Chakrabarti urges Labour to reach verdict on Ken Livingstone Hitler remarks https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/82128/excl-shami-chakrabarti-urges-labour-reach-verdict
"Prior to Operation Barbarossa, the Nazis could have been certain that their invasion of Russia, which began on June 22, 1941, was in for a very cold winter.
It was a matter of simple statistical analysis, the kind at which Adolf Hitler's High Command was supposed to excel. But the German commissariat had hubristically not transported anything like enough woollen hats, gloves, long johns and overcoats to Russia."
We have all the supercomputers anyone could ask for dedicated to weather forecasting, and forecasts are now reliable to about 4 days out (a massive achievement, even if it doesn't sound like one, because forecasting anything is really, really difficult. So knowing anything by "simple statistical analysis" six months plus preparation time in advance is impossible now, never mind then.
What you have to realise is that expertise on any substantial question is always tentative. Like anyone with a PhD I am or have been the world's leading expert on one particularly abstruse and uninteresting topic, but I wouldn't bet the farm either on my judgment or on the consensus judgment of me plus the next 5 closest experts on the subject. And that's just consensus on the facts: consensus on a forecast (of anything) has so little value it is hardly worth attempting. Look at all the expertise poured out by (genuine) experts on steeplechasing on the National in the run up to Aintree. The result must be so clear before the race starts that there is hardly any point in running it - true or false? And if macro-economic forecasting is so easy, where are the experts' Lear jets? Banging on about Gove when he was essentially right is like repeating all those jolly funny gags about the cowardice of the French in staying out of Iraq.
oh.
Too late.