So Europe saying they won't pay up for defence spending. I think it's time for both the US and UK to take a step back from it and watch Russian tanks roll through Eastern Europe. Maybe EU development spending or climate change spending will help those nations looking to have their borders properly defended.
At this stage I think Germany deserves a right royal fucking for their parasitical policies within NATO and the Eurozone. They are nothing but a leech within both and should either be made to pay up or be forced out.
Spot on - we will be totally unaffected when Russian tanks roll through eastern Europe and/or the German economy falls off a cliff.
So essentially you are saying we (the US and those that hit the target) simply have to pay for German defence forever and ever because German's won't?
Do you not think the Germans are taking the piss?
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
Re: America - Very very early days, but Trump still looks nailed on to serve a second term to me.
What odds will you offer me on the whole eight years?
8 years? He'll be lucky to do two. I suspect Mike Pence will use the 25th amendment to take power from a President who is clearly mad.
My guess it was Pence who insisted Michael Flynn be sacked and is the power behind the throne.
Pence the quiet assassin. Watch your back Trump.
I agree. Although probably not surprising it was Pence who insisted in the Flynn case - it was the Veep who was specifically lied to about what happened.
Yep the Germany economy is profiting from a below parity exchange rate which is boosting German exports while causing significant pain to other EU economies.
As for NATO the agreement has for decades been 2% of GDP - and Germany is spending nothing like that....
Actually the agreement has been in place for 11 years - since 2006. So although I agree that many European countries are taking the piss, it is hardly fair to say it has been in place for decades.
Fair enough on the 2% then however I cannot remember a time (going back to the 80s) when Germany was paying as much for their defence as they should be...
Putting aside the scurrilous accusation of being nice I think you will find us less far apart than you think.
The domination of London in the UK is unhealthy not just for Scotland but for most of England. We need much stronger regional voices to drive growth away from London. Osborne's "northern powerhouse" was one such idea but in Scotland we have a government which has a far broader range of tools at its disposal than anything e is much that could be done.
London has always been the dominant city the UK. I suspect it always will be..
Yes but modern economic trends, particularly clustering, is acerbating the trend. It has the critical mass built in in almost every area and the flow over from other areas helps too. As an example London is becoming one of Europe's biggest base in IT. Why? How? What happened to the dreams of the M4 corridor and Cambridge? It sucks up everything.
Regions need to think how they respond. Back office? Specialisation? Educational support? Its not going to be easy, London is just such an exciting place for the ambitious to be in but it is not impossible. Amongst other things it needs politicians who can concentrate on what is needed.
It should be possible to attract talented people out of London. London's a good place to live if you're rich, but I don't see the appeal otherwise.
We have some very good regional universities. They could and should be excellent hubs. That's basically what happened at Cambridge. We need to be competing at a global level for top scientific and engineering talent, and giving them the resources to thrive. We also need to recognise when we are on to something. Graphene was isolated in Manchester by two foreign-born academics. It could have been the start of something huge for the city and the region, but instead others have taken the lead.
For people who are well-paid, but not rich, (earning say £40-80,000 pa) I'd say places like Leeds, Bristol, Nottingham, Leicester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Manchester, Bournemouth, Sheffield, Exeter would offer a much better quality of life than London.
So Europe saying they won't pay up for defence spending. I think it's time for both the US and UK to take a step back from it and watch Russian tanks roll through Eastern Europe. Maybe EU development spending or climate change spending will help those nations looking to have their borders properly defended.
At this stage I think Germany deserves a right royal fucking for their parasitical policies within NATO and the Eurozone. They are nothing but a leech within both and should either be made to pay up or be forced out.
Spot on - we will be totally unaffected when Russian tanks roll through eastern Europe and/or the German economy falls off a cliff.
I suspect he was tongue in cheek but it is outrageous if Europe continues to expect to be defended by others while not laying their fair share. It is also very dangerous given the current POTUS.
When a multi-millionaire PR man for foreign dictators comes hectoring us about the result of the biggest election our country has held, and does so in the name of liberal democracy, surreal is certainly one description. Bonkers, self-delusional egomania is another.
If you want to make an egomaniac feel important make him the lead story.
The front page of the Guardian is 'Blair's Brexit Speech Sparks Labour Fury'.....the only other front page he makes is the Express......so as was pointed out yesterday, this was all about Tony.......
He was all over every media outlet yesterday and has huge coverage in all today's newspapers - including the front cover of the Guardian and the Express. Clearly, he presses some buttons. The media has not been forced to give the speech the attention it has. Newspapers and TV channels have chosen to do it. And they have done so because Blair is box office. I actually wish it were otherwise. I would prefer him to slip away into retirement as I think he does more harm than good - but if you actually read his speech, his clarity of thought stands in stark contrast to the current crop of politician on both sides of the Brexit divide.
Blair said so himself at the end of the speech didn't he? Along the lines of 'I'm allowed to say it, you don't have to listen...'
He is a great at giving speeches, barristers should be I guess. I remember sitting in the waiting room of a Dagenham dentists in 1996 watching his conference speech and feeling like my team had just scored a last minute winner
Today's big hoo-ha is BAe Systems scaling back investment on the Clyde - Westminster LIES! they scream.
Or is it a business weighing risks - whats the point of sinking a fortune of permanent infrastructure into the shipyards of a country whose government may shortly be campaigning for you to lose most of your future orders?
Carlotta salivating at job losses in Scotland, you cannot beat a unionist, we are in this together. Is it any wonder Tories are hated and vilified in Scotland, even the pretendy Scottish ones.
What we don't need is continuing uncertainty about our trading relationship with by far our largest customer. This is exacerbated by Brexit because if rUK are no longer in the Single Market we have a clear choice as to which single market we want to be in and the answer is obvious. We need to be in the one we do 4x more business with.
London does not give two hoots what is happening in Scotland.
So why do they send you £9 billion a year?
And as with the SNP, you conflate my dislike of the SNP with a dislike of Scotland.
The SNP is not Scotland.
They do not send £9B to Scotland. They borrow shedloads of money and make us pay for a whack of it even though we did not ask or want to borrow it. Trying to hide behind the fact you do not like SNP does not cover the fact you are always thrilled at bad news from Scotland , that is despicable and highlights why Tories are hated due to their vile nastiness gloating at other people's misfortunes. You should be hanging your head in shame.
The people who should be hanging their heads in shame are the SNP who are creating business uncertainty by going on about a second Indyref so shortly after the 'once in a generation' previous one.
What shipbuilder in its right mind is going to invest in infrastructure in a country that could lose the vast majority of its contracts in a couple of years?
They are not shipbuilders , they are a government subsidiary , hence why they are in such trouble. When the Tories decide to shaft Scotland they just cut the orders and leave their flunkeys with no business.
Yep the Germany economy is profiting from a below parity exchange rate which is boosting German exports while causing significant pain to other EU economies.
As for NATO the agreement has for decades been 2% of GDP - and Germany is spending nothing like that....
Actually the agreement has been in place for 11 years - since 2006. So although I agree that many European countries are taking the piss, it is hardly fair to say it has been in place for decades.
Fair enough on the 2% then however I cannot remember a time (going back to the 80s) when Germany was paying as much for their defence as they should be...
30 years ago, West Germany had an impressive army, but it's been run down since then.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
Yep the Germany economy is profiting from a below parity exchange rate which is boosting German exports while causing significant pain to other EU economies.
As for NATO the agreement has for decades been 2% of GDP - and Germany is spending nothing like that....
Actually the agreement has been in place for 11 years - since 2006. So although I agree that many European countries are taking the piss, it is hardly fair to say it has been in place for decades.
Fair enough on the 2% then however I cannot remember a time (going back to the 80s) when Germany was paying as much for their defence as they should be...
30 years ago, West Germany had an impressive army, but it's been run down since then.
Maybe totalitarian Germans would welcome the totalitarian Russians.
The standard-bearer of London’s scientific ambitions is the Francis Crick Institute near King’s Cross, named after the scientist who discovered the double helix structure of DNA with James Watson in 1953. It is the biggest biomedical research centre under construction in the world, funded by a £650m investment from the government’s Medical Research Council, two charities (Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust) and three universities (Imperial, UCL and King’s College London).
The Crick will open in 2015 behind the British Library, on the edge of the great regeneration zone north of St Pancras and King’s Cross stations. When it is fully operational, the institute will employ 1,500 staff, including 1,250 scientists, with an operating budget of over £100m a year. Its interdisciplinary work will cover biomedicine on a broad front, to help scientists understand why disease develops and to find new ways of preventing and treating cancer, heart disease and stroke, infections and neurodegenerative diseases.
The chief executive of the Institute is Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse, who is also president of the Royal Society, Britain’s academy of sciences. He gives several reasons why London is the right place for a UK national biomedical research institute. They include: the breadth of expertise in its universities that can be drawn on to support an ambitious interdisciplinary research agenda; the range of patients from varied genetic and ethnic backgrounds being treated in London’s hospitals; the appeal of London for young scientists around the world who love the idea of working in an exciting global city (despite its high prices); and the financial, entrepreneurial and legal expertise available in the UK capital for those wishing to commercialise research.
Fair enough on the 2% then however I cannot remember a time (going back to the 80s) when Germany was paying as much for their defence as they should be...
The British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) was based in West Germany (as it then was) and the FRG picked up all the costs. I assume the same was true for the American bases on West German soil. Even after 1989, I believe the Germans continued to pay and the British continued to keep troops stationed in Germany even though the threat of an invasion from the east had ended.
There was also the not unreasonable assumption that a conventional war would cause massive damage to West Germany and if it escalated to a nuclear conflict, it wouldn't matter much.
I suspect on the other side the DDR were forced to pay for the hosting of Soviet troops.
The massive costs of re-unification post 1990 meant Germany had other things on which to spend its money but I do agree I see no reason why they (and all other NATO members) shouldn't meet the 2% threshold (though whether it could really be 1.5% as an example I don't know).
Re: America - Very very early days, but Trump still looks nailed on to serve a second term to me.
I'm still not convinced Trump is nailed on even for a second year. Ignore the Democrats and keep an eye on the Republicans who still oppose him, and have already seen off Trump appointees Mike Flynn and Andy Pudzer, who was forced to withdraw a couple of days ago. The Mexican wall is looking less likely now the GOP has looked at a map and seen how long the border is, and estimated the cost at $10 to $20 billion, plus annual maintenance, for what? Keynesian stimuli, big government and massive deficits are all Republican staples but Congress has at least to pay lip service to the opposite.
When a multi-millionaire PR man for foreign dictators comes hectoring us about the result of the biggest election our country has held, and does so in the name of liberal democracy, surreal is certainly one description. Bonkers, self-delusional egomania is another.
If you want to make an egomaniac feel important make him the lead story.
The front page of the Guardian is 'Blair's Brexit Speech Sparks Labour Fury'.....the only other front page he makes is the Express......so as was pointed out yesterday, this was all about Tony.......
He was all over every media outlet yesterday and has huge coverage in all today's newspapers - including the front cover of the Guardian and the Express. Clearly, he presses some buttons. The media has not been forced to give the speech the attention it has. Newspapers and TV channels have chosen to do it. And they have done so because Blair is box office. I actually wish it were otherwise. I would prefer him to slip away into retirement as I think he does more harm than good - but if you actually read his speech, his clarity of thought stands in stark contrast to the current crop of politician on both sides of the Brexit divide.
Blair said so himself at the end of the speech didn't he? Along the lines of 'I'm allowed to say it, you don't have to listen...'
He is a great at giving speeches, barristers should be I guess. I remember sitting in the waiting room of a Dagenham dentists in 1996 watching his conference speech and feeling like my team had just scored a last minute winner
Blair comes across as a maniac when he makes speeches nowadays.
When a multi-millionaire PR man for foreign dictators comes hectoring us about the result of the biggest election our country has held, and does so in the name of liberal democracy, surreal is certainly one description. Bonkers, self-delusional egomania is another.
Hmmm - when so many column inches and so much air time has been devoted to Blair over the last 24 hours he is clearly not delusional to believe that people are still interested in what he has to say. If you want to make an egomaniac feel important make him the lead story. The fact is that 10 years since he left the scene, he is still top box office. Only one other post-war PM has had the same affect.
I still have no idea what Blair is actually advocating people DO about Brexit, but it does seem that whatever it is, it is not good news for Corbyn's Labour. That is worth the column inches.
He is not saying that people generally should do anything. He argued that voters have the right to change their minds and that the government should not be given a free hand to negotiate a Brexit deal that nobody voted for. It was hardly earth-shattering stuff.
Given all the coverage, I hadn't realised he was being that vapid.
Re: America - Very very early days, but Trump still looks nailed on to serve a second term to me.
What odds will you offer me on the whole eight years?
8 years? He'll be lucky to do two. I suspect Mike Pence will use the 25th amendment to take power from a President who is clearly mad.
Serious question. What happens if the veep takes power under that amendment and is himself then declared insane By the cabinet?
Would the Speaker of the House take over?
I am just thinking of some of Pence's more - ahem - interesting views on sexual orientation.
Pence is installed as President and immediately appoints his own veep (subject to vote in both Houses) iirc. New guy could then use 25th to begin process again.
You are suggesting Pence would be likely to appoint someone who would declare him insane? I don't think he's that crazy.
More to the point, I think you will find that if the president is declared insane the VP becomes acting president - so that provision doesn't actually apply.
Since the Acting President assumes all the powers and duties of the President, I think all references to the "President" in the Constitution would apply to him, including in the 25th Amendment. So he could appoint an (Acting) VP, who could in theory submit a written declaration with the cabinet that the Acting President is unable to carry out his duties... etc etc.
But in those circumstances, either the Acting President or the original President could submit a written declaration to the effect he's able to resume his duties (and then the provision applies on determining that).
So I think Rotten Borough is right (and obviously he isn't suggesting it's really going to happen - just the theory of what could happen if the Acting President was himself also incapable).
Today's big hoo-ha is BAe Systems scaling back investment on the Clyde - Westminster LIES! they scream.
Or is it a business weighing risks - whats the point of sinking a fortune of permanent infrastructure into the shipyards of a country whose government may shortly be campaigning for you to lose most of your future orders?
.
The SNP are far from great David but at least they have Scotland's interests at heart, the London Tory and Labour cronies do not even pretend they do. London does not give two hoots what is happening in Scotland and skint or not our only chance is to get independance. Alternative is continual decline as London neglect us ever more. Whilst the opposition is just two London centred nonentity parties the SNP are not pushed and will end up just like Labour. With independence we could have real Scottish opposition parties.
PS: For Carlotta it is seen as great news, she views it through the prism of her hatred for everything Scottish. On the other hand if we had a real Scottish Tory party we could have nice human beings like yourself running it.
Putting aside the scurrilous accusation of being nice I think you will find us less far apart than you think.
The domination of London in the UK is unhealthy not just for Scotland but for most of England. We need much stronger regional voices to drive growth away from London. Osborne's "northern powerhouse" was one such idea but in Scotland we have a government which has a far broader range of tools at its disposal than anything contemplated there. We need all our political parties to be focussed on the local, the needs of those they represent and on the need to compete in a challenging world. If our political class would just focus on the day job I think that there is much that could be done.
London has always been the dominant city the UK. I suspect it always will be..
Agreed. Not to say work is not needed for the regions, I live in the regions myself, but I think the worry of London dominance as unique is overdone.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
There are one or two considerations of history that make some people nervous about a militarily resurgent Germany. You are right of course that Germany does very well nicely out of the current arrangement with NATO and the Eurozone, but even so...
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
Are the PBers who think 2% on Defence is sacrosanct, but 0.7% on aid a pointless target that should be replaced by outcome measures one and the same?
So Europe saying they won't pay up for defence spending. I think it's time for both the US and UK to take a step back from it and watch Russian tanks roll through Eastern Europe. Maybe EU development spending or climate change spending will help those nations looking to have their borders properly defended.
At this stage I think Germany deserves a right royal fucking for their parasitical policies within NATO and the Eurozone. They are nothing but a leech within both and should either be made to pay up or be forced out.
Spot on - we will be totally unaffected when Russian tanks roll through eastern Europe and/or the German economy falls off a cliff.
Point well made, although defence spending commitments do take the piss. We only meet it thanks to accountant tricks, which is not a great sign.
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Re: America - Very very early days, but Trump still looks nailed on to serve a second term to me.
What odds will you offer me on the whole eight years?
8 years? He'll be lucky to do two. I suspect Mike Pence will use the 25th amendment to take power from a President who is clearly mad.
Serious question. What happens if the veep takes power under that amendment and is himself then declared insane by the cabinet?
Would the Speaker of the House take over?
I am just thinking of some of Pence's more - ahem - interesting views on sexual orientation.
I am not sure a range of interest views is sufficient to have yourself certified insane, especially when those interesting views are probably supported by 25% or more of the electorate.
Re: America - Very very early days, but Trump still looks nailed on to serve a second term to me.
What odds will you offer me on the whole eight years?
8 years? He'll be lucky to do two. I suspect Mike Pence will use the 25th amendment to take power from a President who is clearly mad.
Serious question. What happens if the veep takes power under that amendment and is himself then declared insane By the cabinet?
Would the Speaker of the House take over?
I am just thinking of some of Pence's more - ahem - interesting views on sexual orientation.
Pence is installed as President and immediately appoints his own veep (subject to vote in both Houses) iirc. New guy could then use 25th to begin process again.
You are suggesting Pence would be likely to appoint someone who would declare him insane? I don't think he's that crazy.
More to the point, I think you will find that if the president is declared insane the VP becomes acting president - so that provision doesn't actually apply.
Since the Acting President assumes all the powers and duties of the President, I think all references to the "President" in the Constitution would apply to him, including in the 25th Amendment. So he could appoint an (Acting) VP, who could in theory submit a written declaration with the cabinet that the Acting President is unable to carry out his duties... etc etc.
But in those circumstances, either the Acting President or the original President could submit a written declaration to the effect he's able to resume his duties (and then the provision applies on determining that).
So I think Rotten Borough is right (and obviously he isn't suggesting it's really going to happen - just the theory of what could happen if the Acting President was himself also incapable).
The 25th ammendment provisions are relatively recent I think. Why was the ammendment felt nessecary?
Though glad to have it! Pence is a queer fish, but sane.
Merkel being bossed by the US number two - something she's not used to in the EU.
MUNICH — Vice President Mike Pence and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday offered dueling assessments of the troubled transatlantic relationship, as both praised NATO but Pence made no mention of the European Union, the key economic and political pact that binds Europe together.
In back-to-back speeches at the Munich Security Conference, Merkel and Pence appeared to find common ground about NATO, whose members have been pushed by President Trump for greater spending. But while Merkel praised the broader international organizations that have been a key part of the post-Cold War global order, Pence’s silence on the EU may only fuel fears among European allies that the new leadership in the White House will embrace only some aspects of European unity, while rejecting others.
So Europe saying they won't pay up for defence spending. I think it's time for both the US and UK to take a step back from it and watch Russian tanks roll through Eastern Europe. Maybe EU development spending or climate change spending will help those nations looking to have their borders properly defended.
At this stage I think Germany deserves a right royal fucking for their parasitical policies within NATO and the Eurozone. They are nothing but a leech within both and should either be made to pay up or be forced out.
Spot on - we will be totally unaffected when Russian tanks roll through eastern Europe and/or the German economy falls off a cliff.
"Not our problem".
In all honestly if the German economy fell to pieces it probably would be a net gain for the rest of Europe given its mega trade surplus.
It is time for more hard headed thinking on the EU. Their loss is our gain. At least in a transactional sense, though personally I'd just take the impoverishment of Germany who refuse to pay their way within the EMU or NATO despite being the largest economic power in Europe and running a budget surplus.
I'd personally increase UK defence spending to 3% of GDP at the expense of public sector and state pensions and still take a step back from NATO.
As Malcolm points out we also need a massive clear out of overpaid Commodores, admirals and generals and a huge recruitment drive for regular infantry and projectible forces.
One thing I have to say is that I'm very thankful the Conservative Party Leadership contest ended up as a coronation. Because reading some of the posts on this site I seriously wouldn't have been surprised to see Leadsom elected by members. Political party bases on both the right and left have been becoming scarier and scarier now for sometime.
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
Are the PBers who think 2% on Defence is sacrosanct, but 0.7% on aid a pointless target that should be replaced by outcome measures one and the same?
Some are and some aren't. I think if 2% is our commitment we absolutely need to meet it and so do others if they also committed, though we seem to spend it very poorly. I also think it seems a reasonable level anyway. But I think 0.7% is aneadily achievable target, though again how it is spent is important.
The standard-bearer of London’s scientific ambitions is the Francis Crick Institute near King’s Cross, named after the scientist who discovered the double helix structure of DNA with James Watson in 1953. It is the biggest biomedical research centre under construction in the world, funded by a £650m investment from the government’s Medical Research Council, two charities (Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust) and three universities (Imperial, UCL and King’s College London).
The Crick will open in 2015 behind the British Library, on the edge of the great regeneration zone north of St Pancras and King’s Cross stations. When it is fully operational, the institute will employ 1,500 staff, including 1,250 scientists, with an operating budget of over £100m a year. Its interdisciplinary work will cover biomedicine on a broad front, to help scientists understand why disease develops and to find new ways of preventing and treating cancer, heart disease and stroke, infections and neurodegenerative diseases.
The chief executive of the Institute is Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse, who is also president of the Royal Society, Britain’s academy of sciences. He gives several reasons why London is the right place for a UK national biomedical research institute. They include: the breadth of expertise in its universities that can be drawn on to support an ambitious interdisciplinary research agenda; the range of patients from varied genetic and ethnic backgrounds being treated in London’s hospitals; the appeal of London for young scientists around the world who love the idea of working in an exciting global city (despite its high prices); and the financial, entrepreneurial and legal expertise available in the UK capital for those wishing to commercialise research.
The Crick centre is very impressive from the outside at least, next to the British Library and St Pancras which is surely our most beautiful station with its Victorian gothic architecture and 21st century interior. But Nurse's rationale for building it in London would have been almost as convincing for Yorkshire, to name but one: lots of universities, ethnically diverse hospital patients and so on.
London is the greatest city in the world but HMG must not fall into Mrs Thatcher's trap that "you can't buck the markets". Rather, the government must look to support the regions lest we end up with irreversible decline outside a prosperous city state.
The standard-bearer of London’s scientific ambitions is the Francis Crick Institute near King’s Cross, named after the scientist who discovered the double helix structure of DNA with James Watson in 1953. It is the biggest biomedical research centre under construction in the world, funded by a £650m investment from the government’s Medical Research Council, two charities (Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust) and three universities (Imperial, UCL and King’s College London).
The Crick will open in 2015 behind the British Library, on the edge of the great regeneration zone north of St Pancras and King’s Cross stations. When it is fully operational, the institute will employ 1,500 staff, including 1,250 scientists, with an operating budget of over £100m a year. Its interdisciplinary work will cover biomedicine on a broad front, to help scientists understand why disease develops and to find new ways of preventing and treating cancer, heart disease and stroke, infections and neurodegenerative diseases.
The chief executive of the Institute is Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse, who is also president of the Royal Society, Britain’s academy of sciences. He gives several reasons why London is the right place for a UK national biomedical research institute. They include: the breadth of expertise in its universities that can be drawn on to support an ambitious interdisciplinary research agenda; the range of patients from varied genetic and ethnic backgrounds being treated in London’s hospitals; the appeal of London for young scientists around the world who love the idea of working in an exciting global city (despite its high prices); and the financial, entrepreneurial and legal expertise available in the UK capital for those wishing to commercialise research.
The Crick centre is very impressive from the outside at least, next to the British Library and St Pancras which is surely our most beautiful station with its Victorian gothic architecture and 21st century interior. But Nurse's rationale for building it in London would have been almost as convincing for Yorkshire, to name but one: lots of universities, ethnically diverse hospital patients and so on.
London is the greatest city in the world but HMG must not fall into Mrs Thatcher's trap that "you can't buck the markets". Rather, the government must look to support the regions lest we end up with irreversible decline outside a prosperous city state.
+1. After all, I am sure most of us have seen Hunger Games.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
Are the PBers who think 2% on Defence is sacrosanct, but 0.7% on aid a pointless target that should be replaced by outcome measures one and the same?
Germany meets neither spending criteria. They are not paying their way in any sense. Whether that's foreign aid, defence or fiscal transfers within a monetary union.
So Europe saying they won't pay up for defence spending. I think it's time for both the US and UK to take a step back from it and watch Russian tanks roll through Eastern Europe. Maybe EU development spending or climate change spending will help those nations looking to have their borders properly defended.
At this stage I think Germany deserves a right royal fucking for their parasitical policies within NATO and the Eurozone. They are nothing but a leech within both and should either be made to pay up or be forced out.
Spot on - we will be totally unaffected when Russian tanks roll through eastern Europe and/or the German economy falls off a cliff.
"Not our problem".
In all honestly if the German economy fell to pieces it probably would be a net gain for the rest of Europe given its mega trade surplus.
It is time for more hard headed thinking on the EU. Their loss is our gain. At least in a transactional sense, though personally I'd just take the impoverishment of Germany who refuse to pay their way within the EMU or NATO despite being the largest economic power in Europe and running a budget surplus.
I'd personally increase UK defence spending to 3% of GDP at the expense of public sector and state pensions and still take a step back from NATO.
As Malcolm points out we also need a massive clear out of overpaid Commodores, admirals and generals and a huge recruitment drive for regular infantry and projectible forces.
If the German economy tanks, markets across Europe will tank. That will be as bad for us as anyone else. If the Russians move into European Union territory, markets will collapse. Again, the impact on us will be as severe as it is for everyone else. We are struggling to meet the 2% commitment. a 3% commitment is not going to happen - but if it did on the terms you suggest, you can bet your bottom dollar that a government which believes in much lower defence spending would soon find its way into power.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
I rather think we would be negatively impacted by Russian tanks rolling across Europe, even if the tanks did not physically role through our own land.
Re: America - Very very early days, but Trump still looks nailed on to serve a second term to me.
What odds will you offer me on the whole eight years?
8 years? He'll be lucky to do two. I suspect Mike Pence will use the 25th amendment to take power from a President who is clearly mad.
Serious question. What happens if the veep takes power under that amendment and is himself then declared insane By the cabinet?
Would the Speaker of the House take over?
I am just thinking of some of Pence's more - ahem - interesting views on sexual orientation.
Pence is installed as President and immediately appoints his own veep (subject to vote in both Houses) iirc. New guy could then use 25th to begin process again.
You are suggesting Pence would be likely to appoint someone who would declare him insane? I don't think he's that crazy.
More to the point, I think you will find that if the president is declared insane the VP becomes acting president - so that provision doesn't actually apply.
Since the Acting President assumes all the powers and duties of the President, I think all references to the "President" in the Constitution would apply to him, including in the 25th Amendment. So he could appoint an (Acting) VP, who could in theory submit a written declaration with the cabinet that the Acting President is unable to carry out his duties... etc etc.
But in those circumstances, either the Acting President or the original President could submit a written declaration to the effect he's able to resume his duties (and then the provision applies on determining that).
So I think Rotten Borough is right (and obviously he isn't suggesting it's really going to happen - just the theory of what could happen if the Acting President was himself also incapable).
The 25th ammendment provisions are relatively recent I think. Why was the ammendment felt nessecary?
Though glad to have it! Pence is a queer fish, but sane.
Because Eisenhower was incapacitated three times during his presidency following heart attacks, leaving government paralysed and no finger on the nuclear trigger.
Mind you if it had been around in the 1950s it would have been Nixon taking over...
Re: America - Very very early days, but Trump still looks nailed on to serve a second term to me.
What odds will you offer me on the whole eight years?
8 years? He'll be lucky to do two. I suspect Mike Pence will use the 25th amendment to take power from a President who is clearly mad.
Serious question. What happens if the veep takes power under that amendment and is himself then declared insane By the cabinet?
Would the Speaker of the House take over?
I am just thinking of some of Pence's more - ahem - interesting views on sexual orientation.
Pence is installed as President and immediately appoints his own veep (subject to vote in both Houses) iirc. New guy could then use 25th to begin process again.
You are suggesting Pence would be likely to appoint someone who would declare him insane? I don't think he's that crazy.
More to the point, I think you will find that if the president is declared insane the VP becomes acting president - so that provision doesn't actually apply.
Since the Acting President assumes all the powers and duties of the President, I think all references to the "President" in the Constitution would apply to him, including in the 25th Amendment. So he could appoint an (Acting) VP, who could in theory submit a written declaration with the cabinet that the Acting President is unable to carry out his duties... etc etc.
But in those circumstances, either the Acting President or the original President could submit a written declaration to the effect he's able to resume his duties (and then the provision applies on determining that).
So I think Rotten Borough is right (and obviously he isn't suggesting it's really going to happen - just the theory of what could happen if the Acting President was himself also incapable).
The 25th ammendment provisions are relatively recent I think. Why was the ammendment felt nessecary?
Though glad to have it! Pence is a queer fish, but sane.
Wasn't it - at least partially - FDR and JFK inspired?
So Europe saying they won't pay up for defence spending. I think it's time for both the US and UK to take a step back from it and watch Russian tanks roll through Eastern Europe. Maybe EU development spending or climate change spending will help those nations looking to have their borders properly defended.
At this stage I think Germany deserves a right royal fucking for their parasitical policies within NATO and the Eurozone. They are nothing but a leech within both and should either be made to pay up or be forced out.
Spot on - we will be totally unaffected when Russian tanks roll through eastern Europe and/or the German economy falls off a cliff.
"Not our problem".
In all honestly if the German economy fell to pieces it probably would be a net gain for the rest of Europe given its mega trade surplus.
It is time for more hard headed thinking on the EU. Their loss is our gain. At least in a transactional sense, though personally I'd just take the impoverishment of Germany who refuse to pay their way within the EMU or NATO despite being the largest economic power in Europe and running a budget surplus.
I'd personally increase UK defence spending to 3% of GDP at the expense of public sector and state pensions and still take a step back from NATO.
As Malcolm points out we also need a massive clear out of overpaid Commodores, admirals and generals and a huge recruitment drive for regular infantry and projectible forces.
If the German economy tanks, markets across Europe will tank. That will be as bad for us as anyone else. If the Russians move into European Union territory, markets will collapse. Again, the impact on us will be as severe as it is for everyone else. We are struggling to meet the 2% commitment. a 3% commitment is not going to happen - but if it did on the terms you suggest, you can bet your bottom dollar that a government which believes in much lower defence spending would soon find its way into power.
Again, we'll survive. What happened to this country when we're so scared of a little bit of economic hardship. I think the vote to leave proved that it was the chicken shit remainers who are made of jelly and go wobbly at the first sign of 0.3% growth instead of 0.6% growth. The rest of us are not as easily perturbed. Anyway, as I said, on a purely transactional basis the UK would probably do quite well out of a German collapse, so would France and Northern Italy. Germany's trade surplus would have to find a new home.
Pence: I suspect the Republican establishment would be very pleased with Pence becoming POTUS, if necessary followed by a Trump pardon. Pence doesn't even need to be elected!
Blair: The noteworthy thing is that Blair is almost the only politician talking sense on Brexit from either the Leave or Remain camps. If he's deemed to be yesterday's man it makes that observation even more remarkable.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
Because the EU is our single biggest export destination; because financial markets are totally interconnected; because conflicts halt investment decisions; because once Russian tanks start rolling there is no knowing when they will stop if they are essentially unopposed; because we do not have the resources or the manpower to effectively police our waters and airspace. I cannot believe that I am seriously having to explain to anyone that a war in Europe would be absolutely disastrous to all European countries.
Re: America - Very very early days, but Trump still looks nailed on to serve a second term to me.
What odds will you offer me on the whole eight years?
8 years? He'll be lucky to do two. I suspect Mike Pence will use the 25th amendment to take power from a President who is clearly mad.
Serious question. What happens if the veep takes power under that amendment and is himself then declared insane By the cabinet?
Would the Speaker of the House take over?
I am just thinking of some of Pence's more - ahem - interesting views on sexual orientation.
Pence is installed as President and immediately appoints his own veep (subject to vote in both Houses) iirc. New guy could then use 25th to begin process again.
You are suggesting Pence would be likely to appoint someone who would declare him insane? I don't think he's that crazy.
More to the point, I think you will find that if the president is declared insane the VP becomes acting president - so that provision doesn't actually apply.
Since the Acting President assumes all the powers and duties of the President, I think all references to the "President" in the Constitution would apply to him, including in the 25th Amendment. So he could appoint an (Acting) VP, who could in theory submit a written declaration with the cabinet that the Acting President is unable to carry out his duties... etc etc.
But in those circumstances, either the Acting President or the original President could submit a written declaration to the effect he's able to resume his duties (and then the provision applies on determining that).
So I think Rotten Borough is right (and obviously he isn't suggesting it's really going to happen - just the theory of what could happen if the Acting President was himself also incapable).
The 25th ammendment provisions are relatively recent I think. Why was the ammendment felt nessecary?
Though glad to have it! Pence is a queer fish, but sane.
Wasn't it - at least partially - FDR and JFK inspired?
We saw the film Jackie last night.
Although mainly about Jackie Kennedy (so sad) it reminded me how impressive was JFK.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
It's become self-reinforcing, as Republican primaries are dominated by very right wing voters, and Democratic primaries by very left wing voters.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
I rather think we would be negatively impacted by Russian tanks rolling across Europe, even if the tanks did not physically role through our own land.
Not "just as buggered" though. Some level of economic difficulty, probably a huge level of gain since the UK would be seen as a safe haven European economy with well defended borders. If Russian tanks rolling through Eastern Europe took even 1% off economic growth in this country I'd be very, very surprised.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
Because the EU is our single biggest export destination; because financial markets are totally interconnected; because conflicts halt investment decisions; because once Russian tanks start rolling there is no knowing when they will stop if they are essentially unopposed; because we do not have the resources or the manpower to effectively police our waters and airspace. I cannot believe that I am seriously having to explain to anyone that a war in Europe would be absolutely disastrous to all European countries.
The EU is not a single destination. There isn't even a single market in services.
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
It's become self-reinforcing, as Republican primaries are dominated by very right wing voters, and Democratic primaries by very left wing voters.
If Democrat primaries were dominated by very left wing voters, Bernie Sanders would have been the party's nominee, not Hillary.
Re: America - Very very early days, but Trump still looks nailed on to serve a second term to me.
What odds will you offer me on the whole eight years?
8 years? He'll be lucky to do two. I suspect Mike Pence will use the 25th amendment to take power from a President who is clearly mad.
Serious question. What happens if the veep takes power under that amendment and is himself then declared insane By the cabinet?
Would the Speaker of the House take over?
I am just thinking of some of Pence's more - ahem - interesting views on sexual orientation.
Pence is installed as President and immediately appoints his own veep (subject to vote in both Houses) iirc. New guy could then use 25th to begin process again.
You are suggesting Pence would be likely to appoint someone who would declare him insane? I don't think he's that crazy.
More to the point, I think you will find that if the president is declared insane the VP becomes acting president - so that provision doesn't actually apply.
Since the Acting President assumes all the powers and duties of the President, I think all references to the "President" in the Constitution would apply to him, including in the 25th Amendment. So he could appoint an (Acting) VP, who could in theory submit a written declaration with the cabinet that the Acting President is unable to carry out his duties... etc etc.
But in those circumstances, either the Acting President or the original President could submit a written declaration to the effect he's able to resume his duties (and then the provision applies on determining that).
So I think Rotten Borough is right (and obviously he isn't suggesting it's really going to happen - just the theory of what could happen if the Acting President was himself also incapable).
The 25th ammendment provisions are relatively recent I think. Why was the ammendment felt nessecary?
Though glad to have it! Pence is a queer fish, but sane.
Wasn't it - at least partially - FDR and JFK inspired?
We saw the film Jackie last night.
Although mainly about Jackie Kennedy (so sad) it reminded me how impressive was JFK.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
There's a reasonably interesting article floating around out there about the Portman/JKennedy accent and how it's oddly spot on.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
I rather think we would be negatively impacted by Russian tanks rolling across Europe, even if the tanks did not physically role through our own land.
Not "just as buggered" though.
You might be seizing upon a minor semantic point more than was intended.
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
Not only that but the centre ground of US voters is some way to the right of the centre ground of UK voters. Hillary Clinton is probably about the same place as Nick Clegg but with extra identity politics, almost all republicans are some way to the right of the centre of the Tory party.
In contemporary USA 28% of the public thinks homosexuality should be unlawful. We see the liberal coastal bits over here mostly, the TV and Arts output from New York and California, there is a whole vast area of deep conservatism between the two.
So Europe saying they won't pay up for defence spending. I think it's time for both the US and UK to take a step back from it and watch Russian tanks roll through Eastern Europe. Maybe EU development spending or climate change spending will help those nations looking to have their borders properly defended.
At this stage I think Germany deserves a right royal fucking for their parasitical policies within NATO and the Eurozone. They are nothing but a leech within both and should either be made to pay up or be forced out.
Spot on - we will be totally unaffected when Russian tanks roll through eastern Europe and/or the German economy falls off a cliff.
"Not our problem".
In all honestly if the German economy fell to pieces it probably would be a net gain for the rest of Europe given its mega trade surplus.
It is time for more hard headed thinking on the EU. Their loss is our gain. At least in a transactional sense, though personally I'd just take the impoverishment of Germany who refuse to pay their way within the EMU or NATO despite being the largest economic power in Europe and running a budget surplus.
I'd personally increase UK defence spending to 3% of GDP at the expense of public sector and state pensions and still take a step back from NATO.
As Malcolm points out we also need a massive clear out of overpaid Commodores, admirals and generals and a huge recruitment drive for regular infantry and projectible forces.
If the German economy tanks, markets across Europe will tank. That will be as bad for us as anyone else. If the Russians move into European Union territory, markets will collapse. Again, the impact on us will be as severe as it is for everyone else. We are struggling to meet the 2% commitment. a 3% commitment is not going to happen - but if it did on the terms you suggest, you can bet your bottom dollar that a government which believes in much lower defence spending would soon find its way into power.
Again, we'll survive. What happened to this country when we're so scared of a little bit of economic hardship. I think the vote to leave proved that it was the chicken shit remainers who are made of jelly and go wobbly at the first sign of 0.3% growth instead of 0.6% growth. The rest of us are not as easily perturbed. Anyway, as I said, on a purely transactional basis the UK would probably do quite well out of a German collapse, so would France and Northern Italy. Germany's trade surplus would have to find a new home.
Ha, ha. You should take up competitive sport and leave the real world to the grown-ups, Max. Willy-waving is not a serious policy.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
Because the EU is our single biggest export destination; because financial markets are totally interconnected; because conflicts halt investment decisions; because once Russian tanks start rolling there is no knowing when they will stop if they are essentially unopposed; because we do not have the resources or the manpower to effectively police our waters and airspace. I cannot believe that I am seriously having to explain to anyone that a war in Europe would be absolutely disastrous to all European countries.
Halts investment decisions in Europe. We're not really in Europe, not being connected to the continent or being on the EU. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK economy surged in the event of a Russian invasion of Europe. "Despite Russia".
Mr. Observer, to be fair, Sanders was unlucky with coin tosses and there are allegations that the party's machinery was a little more inclined towards Clinton.
Mr. Doethur, rather good comment, as many others have said.
Must agree that Germany's very prosperous but not paying its way in terms of Defence (I have sympathy with them on Aid, but I'd have more if they hadn't invited the Middle East to pop over, and don't worry about the European countries in between).
We now know that Brexit means leaving the single market and ending free movement, the relationship with the EU will be based on a Swiss or Canada style deal so I don't see opinions changing too much even after Article 50 is invoked
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
John McCain, John Kasich, Mark Warner, even Tim Kaine, there are still a few about
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
Not only that but the centre ground of US voters is some way to the right of the centre ground of UK voters. Hillary Clinton is probably about the same place as Nick Clegg but with extra identity politics, almost all republicans are some way to the right of the centre of the Tory party.
In contemporary USA 28% of the public thinks homosexuality should be unlawful. We see the liberal coastal bits over here mostly, the TV and Arts output from New York and California, there is a whole vast area of deep conservatism between the two.
Clinton is very hawkish re foreign policy. I wouldn't place her as a LD, personally. Perhaps on the very right of the Labour party. If you took away the identity politics, Hillary could even be a moderate in the Conservative Party (now I'm interested in the response I'll get for saying that). I have relatives in New York and Florida, so those are the only two places in America I've actually been to and know a bit about.
I am also flabbergasted that as many as 28% of Americans believe that about homosexuality. I understand that some are passionately religious, but freedom of religion doesn't mean the right to impose religious beliefs on others.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
Because countries.
Halts investment decisions in Europe. We're not really in Europe, not being connected to the continent or being on the EU. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK economy surged in the event of a Russian invasion of Europe. "Despite Russia".
In which case you are simply delusional. Why would anyone invest serious money in the UK when 22 miles across the sea and in the skies overhead there was conflict in our single biggest export market? I suspect that you are on a wind-up.
Merkel being bossed by the US number two - something she's not used to in the EU.
MUNICH — Vice President Mike Pence and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday offered dueling assessments of the troubled transatlantic relationship, as both praised NATO but Pence made no mention of the European Union, the key economic and political pact that binds Europe together.
In back-to-back speeches at the Munich Security Conference, Merkel and Pence appeared to find common ground about NATO, whose members have been pushed by President Trump for greater spending. But while Merkel praised the broader international organizations that have been a key part of the post-Cold War global order, Pence’s silence on the EU may only fuel fears among European allies that the new leadership in the White House will embrace only some aspects of European unity, while rejecting others.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
Because the EU is our single biggest export destination; because financial markets are totally interconnected; because conflicts halt investment decisions; because once Russian tanks start rolling there is no knowing when they will stop if they are essentially unopposed; because we do not have the resources or the manpower to effectively police our waters and airspace. I cannot believe that I am seriously having to explain to anyone that a war in Europe would be absolutely disastrous to all European countries.
The EU is not a single destination. There isn't even a single market in services.
Ha, ha. You should take up competitive sport and leave the real world to the grown-ups, Max. Willy-waving is not a serious policy.
I think you'll find it is a very useful policy. The UK remilitarises and increases defence spending, but at the same time steps back from NATO on the basis of the Europeans not paying their way, makes a special agreement to defend the border of Poland and other nations who have met the spending targets along with the US. How quickly would the rest of Europe fall in line?
In general your love of Europe has blinded you completely. Their prosperity is not our prosperity. Their safety is not our safety. I know you are a patriot, but at the same time you need to know who our real friends our in this world. Germany is not on that list. When Merkel got on a platform with the Chinese premier and denounced those who oppose globalisation I thought you would come to this realisation but alas, I'm still waiting for the moment.
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
Not only that but the centre ground of US voters is some way to the right of the centre ground of UK voters. Hillary Clinton is probably about the same place as Nick Clegg but with extra identity politics, almost all republicans are some way to the right of the centre of the Tory party.
In contemporary USA 28% of the public thinks homosexuality should be unlawful. We see the liberal coastal bits over here mostly, the TV and Arts output from New York and California, there is a whole vast area of deep conservatism between the two.
Trump Republicans are certainly closer to UKIP than Tories but there are still people in areas like Stoke and Rotherham who think homosexuality should be illegal too and are not great fans of abortion either. Those areas have more in common with Ohio and West Virginia than they do with central London which is basically an add on of NYC and California for the U.S. and UK elite
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
John McCain, John Kasich, Mark Warner, even Tim Kaine, there are still a few about
That's literally four people though - the fact that the list that comes to mind isn't long kind of says it all. Everytime I read Tim Kaine's name I always remember that Bill Maher joke about him.
Merkel being bossed by the US number two - something she's not used to in the EU.
MUNICH — Vice President Mike Pence and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday offered dueling assessments of the troubled transatlantic relationship, as both praised NATO but Pence made no mention of the European Union, the key economic and political pact that binds Europe together.
In back-to-back speeches at the Munich Security Conference, Merkel and Pence appeared to find common ground about NATO, whose members have been pushed by President Trump for greater spending. But while Merkel praised the broader international organizations that have been a key part of the post-Cold War global order, Pence’s silence on the EU may only fuel fears among European allies that the new leadership in the White House will embrace only some aspects of European unity, while rejecting others.
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
Not only that but the centre ground of US voters is some way to the right of the centre ground of UK voters. Hillary Clinton is probably about the same place as Nick Clegg but with extra identity politics, almost all republicans are some way to the right of the centre of the Tory party.
In contemporary USA 28% of the public thinks homosexuality should be unlawful. We see the liberal coastal bits over here mostly, the TV and Arts output from New York and California, there is a whole vast area of deep conservatism between the two.
Trump Republicans are certainly closer to UKIP than Tories but there are still people in areas like Stoke and Rotherham who think homosexuality should be illegal too and are not great fans of abortion either. Those areas have more in common with Ohio and West Virginia than they do with central London which is basically an add on of NYC and California for the U.S. and UK elite
The likes of Pence and Paul Ryan aren't that far away from UKIP either.
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
Not only that but the centre ground of US voters is some way to the right of the centre ground of UK voters. Hillary Clinton is probably about the same place as Nick Clegg but with extra identity politics, almost all republicans are some way to the right of the centre of the Tory party.
In contemporary USA 28% of the public thinks homosexuality should be unlawful. We see the liberal coastal bits over here mostly, the TV and Arts output from New York and California, there is a whole vast area of deep conservatism between the two.
Clinton is very hawkish re foreign policy. I wouldn't place her as a LD, personally. Perhaps on the very right of the Labour party. If you took away the identity politics, Hillary could even be a moderate in the Conservative Party (now I'm interested in the response I'll get for saying that). I have relatives in New York and Florida, so those are the only two places in America I've actually been to and know a bit about.
I am also flabbergasted that as many as 28% of Americans believe that about homosexuality. I understand that some are passionately religious, but freedom of religion doesn't mean the right to impose religious beliefs on others.
Some people emigrated to the US in search of tolerance. Others emigrated because they wanted to create a different form of theocracy to the one that was persecuting them at home. Suppressing dissent is very much in line with US history in some States.
Ha, ha. You should take up competitive sport and leave the real world to the grown-ups, Max. Willy-waving is not a serious policy.
I think you'll find it is a very useful policy. The UK remilitarises and increases defence spending, but at the same time steps back from NATO on the basis of the Europeans not paying their way, makes a special agreement to defend the border of Poland and other nations who have met the spending targets along with the US. How quickly would the rest of Europe fall in line?
In general your love of Europe has blinded you completely. Their prosperity is not our prosperity. Their safety is not our safety. I know you are a patriot, but at the same time you need to know who our real friends our in this world. Germany is not on that list. When Merkel got on a platform with the Chinese premier and denounced those who oppose globalisation I thought you would come to this realisation but alas, I'm still waiting for the moment.
Absolute and unmitigated nonsense. The UK is an integral part of the European economy. Our exporting companies need a strong European market, as does the City. Willy-waving is not serious policy. Are you living in Switzerland yet?
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
Not only that but the centre ground of US voters is some way to the right of the centre ground of UK voters. Hillary Clinton is probably about the same place as Nick Clegg but with extra identity politics, almost all republicans are some way to the right of the centre of the Tory party.
In contemporary USA 28% of the public thinks homosexuality should be unlawful. We see the liberal coastal bits over here mostly, the TV and Arts output from New York and California, there is a whole vast area of deep conservatism between the two.
Clinton is very hawkish re foreign policy. I wouldn't place her as a LD, personally. Perhaps on the very right of the Labour party. If you took away the identity politics, Hillary could even be a moderate in the Conservative Party (now I'm interested in the response I'll get for saying that). I have relatives in New York and Florida, so those are the only two places in America I've actually been to and know a bit about.
I am also flabbergasted that as many as 28% of Americans believe that about homosexuality. I understand that some are passionately religious, but freedom of religion doesn't mean the right to impose religious beliefs on others.
There'd been a bit of a fuss about this intv beforehand, with usual suspects all throwing a wobbly - I thought it worked out pretty well except the end
youtu.be/kSlC1eo2AFE
This is what UC Berkeley was scared about? Pathetic!
Edit: I meant "Sad!", of course
Mayer posted an excerpt and he got hundreds of hate tweets from liberals calling him a traitor etc.
It's all quite bizarre. I couldn't put twitter down last night. The self-righteous OTT indignation from some of the media to Trump's last tweet was epic. And exactly what he intended to provoke.
Joe Scarborough made a complete twit of himself
He compared MSNBC and a handful of corporate media outlets to the definition of the 1st Amend
And forgets that the 1st Amendment goes both ways. And isn't the fiefdom of 6 billionaires.
Joe Scarborough Only a FAKE PRESIDENT would declare the First Amendment to be the enemy of the American people. https://t.co/ZFZvlTf8Az
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
Not only that but the centre ground of US voters is some way to the right of the centre ground of UK voters. Hillary Clinton is probably about the same place as Nick Clegg but with extra identity politics, almost all republicans are some way to the right of the centre of the Tory party.
In contemporary USA 28% of the public thinks homosexuality should be unlawful. We see the liberal coastal bits over here mostly, the TV and Arts output from New York and California, there is a whole vast area of deep conservatism between the two.
Trump Republicans are certainly closer to UKIP than Tories but there are still people in areas like Stoke and Rotherham who think homosexuality should be illegal too and are not great fans of abortion either. Those areas have more in common with Ohio and West Virginia than they do with central London which is basically an add on of NYC and California for the U.S. and UK elite
The likes of Pence and Paul Ryan aren't that far away from UKIP either.
Pence certainly, Ryan is more like a slightly more telegenic version of Liam Fox
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
Because the EU is our single biggest export destination; because financial markets are totally interconnected; because conflicts halt investment decisions; because once Russian tanks start rolling there is no knowing when they will stop if they are essentially unopposed; because we do not have the resources or the manpower to effectively police our waters and airspace. I cannot believe that I am seriously having to explain to anyone that a war in Europe would be absolutely disastrous to all European countries.
Halts investment decisions in Europe. We're not really in Europe, not being connected to the continent or being on the EU. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK economy surged in the event of a Russian invasion of Europe. "Despite Russia".
I would expect Global Aggregate Demand would decline following an invasion of eastern Europe by Russia. We would do relatively, rather than absolutely, well.
Ha, ha. You should take up competitive sport and leave the real world to the grown-ups, Max. Willy-waving is not a serious policy.
I think you'll find it is a very useful policy. The UK remilitarises and increases defence spending, but at the same time steps back from NATO on the basis of the Europeans not paying their way, makes a special agreement to defend the border of Poland and other nations who have met the spending targets along with the US. How quickly would the rest of Europe fall in line?
In general your love of Europe has blinded you completely. Their prosperity is not our prosperity. Their safety is not our safety. I know you are a patriot, but at the same time you need to know who our real friends our in this world. Germany is not on that list. When Merkel got on a platform with the Chinese premier and denounced those who oppose globalisation I thought you would come to this realisation but alas, I'm still waiting for the moment.
It seems you also need to know who our real friends are in the world - we don't have any. Nor does anyone. We coexist, sometimes we co-operate, sometimes we clash. The rest is bunk.
RE Mike Pence - how are people like Mike Pence mainstream in the GOP? This is a party that had Colin Powell as SOS in the last Republican administration.
Over the past 50 years, there's been a big process of sorting in US politics. Back then, there were right wing Democrats and left wing Republicans. Neither group exists, now.
Yes, there are not many moderates in US politics now. It's actually rather sad, and makes me thankful that we still have quite a few moderates in British politics.
John McCain, John Kasich, Mark Warner, even Tim Kaine, there are still a few about
That's literally four people though - the fact that the list that comes to mind isn't long kind of says it all. Everytime I read Tim Kaine's name I always remember that Bill Maher joke about him.
True but the centre has also shrunk in the UK too, the number of pro EU, wet Tories can be counted on 1 hand and the number of Blairites in Corbyn Labour is also a small minority
Ha, ha. You should take up competitive sport and leave the real world to the grown-ups, Max. Willy-waving is not a serious policy.
I think you'll find it is a very useful policy. The UK remilitarises and increases defence spending, but at the same time steps back from NATO on the basis of the Europeans not paying their way, makes a special agreement to defend the border of Poland and other nations who have met the spending targets along with the US. How quickly would the rest of Europe fall in line?
In general your love of Europe has blinded you completely. Their prosperity is not our prosperity. Their safety is not our safety. I know you are a patriot, but at the same time you need to know who our real friends our in this world. Germany is not on that list. When Merkel got on a platform with the Chinese premier and denounced those who oppose globalisation I thought you would come to this realisation but alas, I'm still waiting for the moment.
It seems you also need to know who our real friends are in the world - we don't have any. Nor does anyone. We coexist, sometimes we co-operate, sometimes we clash. The rest is bunk.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
Because the EU is our single biggest export destination; because financial markets are totally interconnected; because conflicts halt investment decisions; because once Russian tanks start rolling there is no knowing when they will stop if they are essentially unopposed; because we do not have the resources or the manpower to effectively police our waters and airspace. I cannot believe that I am seriously having to explain to anyone that a war in Europe would be absolutely disastrous to all European countries.
The EU is not a single destination. There isn't even a single market in services.
It is our biggest export market.
The EU is not a single market, it is a series of national markets - look at market shares of companies in each country.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
Because countries.
Halts investment decisions in Europe. We're not really in Europe, not being connected to the continent or being on the EU. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK economy surged in the event of a Russian invasion of Europe. "Despite Russia".
I would expect Global Aggregate Demand would decline following an invasion of eastern Europe by Russia. We would do relatively, rather than absolutely, well.
What does relatively well mean? Not as badly as the countries actually invaded? That is true. So less catastrophically badly. The countries that would actually benefit would be thousands of miles away in North America and Asia.
Surely UK politicians will not allow KRAFT to take over Unilever after KRAFT failed to live up to its commitments on the Cadbury take over?
Cadbury factory closure by Kraft 'despicable'
Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said Kraft's global chief executive, Irene Rosenfeld, had not given specific commitments on jobs when they met last week, but said she should have made the position clear.
"A week ago she would have known what announcement would be made, barely six days later.
"It would have been more honest if it had been more straight forward and straight dealing with the company and the workforce and also with the government if she had told me what their intentions were."
what's really interesting in that Emmbrook result is when you compare it to 2016 (Wokingham elects in thirds) - Lib Dems 1222 Cons 1235 has become Lib Dems 1575 and Cons 879.
Campaign fought on local issues, including development, roads, school funding and the local Tories being a bunch of unpleasant greedy people who are fighting like rats in a sack.
As the Lib Dem agent, I am very proud.
First of all, well done !
Second, I repeat what I wrote a couple of days back. I am beginning to doubt the current opinion polls. All these adjustments to the weighting has created a dog's breakfast.
The Tories cannot have such a big lead and lose badly in all sorts of local by-elections , up and down the country.
How can it be that only the Tories do not come out to vote ?
Take a look at how Labour performed in local by-elections, after 1997. It had no bearing on the next two general elections.
Also the Tory lead is so big it must be made up of a lot of former Labour voters. If they have taken their old voting habits to their new party of choice, they probably won't turn out in such great numbers as more traditional Tory voters do. So the marked tendency of Labour to underperform what the polls are predicting might no longer be true.
No, I am saying that it is in our own interests to ensure that there is peace in Europe and in the European Union in particular. The alternative is catastrophic for us on just about every level imaginable. We are not paying for Germany's defence - the US is. And the UK 's foreign and defence policy has been predicated on that for the last 70 years.
So it's alright providing it's the US paying and not the UK?
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
What is stupid is to believe that the UK makes any meaningful contribution to the defence of Europe. If the US pulls out or downgrades, then the UK is as buggered as everyone else. The idea that it is us and the Americans keeping the peace in Europe is utterly delusional.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
Explain how Russian tanks roll though the UK? I'd like to hear how we'd be just as buggered as the rest of Europe.
Because countries.
The EU is not a single destination. There isn't even a single market in services.
It is our biggest export market.
The EU is not a single market, it is a series of national markets - look at market shares of companies in each country.
Market shares in different countries don't tell us much about whether the EU is a single market or not. They just tells us about demand. EU law takes precedence across Europe. Just as federal law takes precedence in the US. In the absence of EU (federal) law, then obviously local law will apply.
"Blair argued that there was no need for a second referendum if MPs judged that people had changed their minds and wanted to remain in the EU."
That's even worse. If MPs take a subjective view (everyone at my dinner party agreed) then they can overturn the referendum.
And he thinks the voters will accept that?
He doesn't, and he knows none of this is going to happen anyway. RobD hit the nail on the head yesterday - Blair is focusing on his own ego, as always. After becoming such a widely-despised figure across the political spectrum, maybe he's realised this is a way of getting some popularity back, even if it is only with Remain ultras.
Ha, ha. You should take up competitive sport and leave the real world to the grown-ups, Max. Willy-waving is not a serious policy.
I think you'll find it is a very useful policy. The UK remilitarises and increases defence spending, but at the same time steps back from NATO on the basis of the Europeans not paying their way, makes a special agreement to defend the border of Poland and other nations who have met the spending targets along with the US. How quickly would the rest of Europe fall in line?
In general your love of Europe has blinded you completely. Their prosperity is not our prosperity. Their safety is not our safety. I know you are a patriot, but at the same time you need to know who our real friends our in this world. Germany is not on that list. When Merkel got on a platform with the Chinese premier and denounced those who oppose globalisation I thought you would come to this realisation but alas, I'm still waiting for the moment.
It seems you also need to know who our real friends are in the world - we don't have any. Nor does anyone. We coexist, sometimes we co-operate, sometimes we clash. The rest is bunk.
Apropos Mike Pence's views of "curing" homosexuality. This from Gallup last year.
In your view is being gay or lesbian something they are born with ... 24% due to factors such as upbringing and environment ... 33% both ... 12% neither ... 2% DK ... 8%
Comments
EXC: 1. UK ministers and foreign statesmen now actively trying to persuade David Cameron to go for top NATO post.
He is a great at giving speeches, barristers should be I guess. I remember sitting in the waiting room of a Dagenham dentists in 1996 watching his conference speech and feeling like my team had just scored a last minute winner
We are not talking about post-war West Germany, or recently reunified Germany, they can damn well afford to pay 2% of GDP for defence.
A Germany that won't pay for its own defence, and benefits hugely from the Eurozone at other states expense, is not much of an ally.
The Crick will open in 2015 behind the British Library, on the edge of the great regeneration zone north of St Pancras and King’s Cross stations. When it is fully operational, the institute will employ 1,500 staff, including 1,250 scientists, with an operating budget of over £100m a year. Its interdisciplinary work will cover biomedicine on a broad front, to help scientists understand why disease develops and to find new ways of preventing and treating cancer, heart disease and stroke, infections and neurodegenerative diseases.
The chief executive of the Institute is Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse, who is also president of the Royal Society, Britain’s academy of sciences. He gives several reasons why London is the right place for a UK national biomedical research institute. They include: the breadth of expertise in its universities that can be drawn on to support an ambitious interdisciplinary research agenda; the range of patients from varied genetic and ethnic backgrounds being treated in London’s hospitals; the appeal of London for young scientists around the world who love the idea of working in an exciting global city (despite its high prices); and the financial, entrepreneurial and legal expertise available in the UK capital for those wishing to commercialise research.
There was also the not unreasonable assumption that a conventional war would cause massive damage to West Germany and if it escalated to a nuclear conflict, it wouldn't matter much.
I suspect on the other side the DDR were forced to pay for the hosting of Soviet troops.
The massive costs of re-unification post 1990 meant Germany had other things on which to spend its money but I do agree I see no reason why they (and all other NATO members) shouldn't meet the 2% threshold (though whether it could really be 1.5% as an example I don't know).
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/832890215652028417
Edit: ....and desperate.
Silly me, it's tony Blair.
But in those circumstances, either the Acting President or the original President could submit a written declaration to the effect he's able to resume his duties (and then the provision applies on determining that).
So I think Rotten Borough is right (and obviously he isn't suggesting it's really going to happen - just the theory of what could happen if the Acting President was himself also incapable).
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-ministers-plans-to-transform-the-way-we-tackle-domestic-violence-and-abuse
Though glad to have it! Pence is a queer fish, but sane.
In back-to-back speeches at the Munich Security Conference, Merkel and Pence appeared to find common ground about NATO, whose members have been pushed by President Trump for greater spending. But while Merkel praised the broader international organizations that have been a key part of the post-Cold War global order, Pence’s silence on the EU may only fuel fears among European allies that the new leadership in the White House will embrace only some aspects of European unity, while rejecting others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/pence-and-merkel-embrace-nato-but-differ-on-transatlantic-partnership/2017/02/18/909c6a92-f55c-11e6-9fb1-2d8f3fc9c0ed_story.html?32098742301984702139874=&tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.215aef0cb5c7
French Foreign Minister:
@jeanmarcayrault: A Munich le Vice-président Pence renouvelle l'engagement américain dans l'alliance atlantique. Mais pas un mot sur l'UE
In all honestly if the German economy fell to pieces it probably would be a net gain for the rest of Europe given its mega trade surplus.
It is time for more hard headed thinking on the EU. Their loss is our gain. At least in a transactional sense, though personally I'd just take the impoverishment of Germany who refuse to pay their way within the EMU or NATO despite being the largest economic power in Europe and running a budget surplus.
I'd personally increase UK defence spending to 3% of GDP at the expense of public sector and state pensions and still take a step back from NATO.
As Malcolm points out we also need a massive clear out of overpaid Commodores, admirals and generals and a huge recruitment drive for regular infantry and projectible forces.
As for Germany - yes, they have done very well out of how things are currently. We did spend decades seeking to actively ensure that the Germans did not spend money on defending themselves, instead, making sure they paid for us to do it instead. It is no great surprise that as a result the Germans have come to view defence spending in a certain way. Current thinking in the country is a product of what came before. My guess is that this will begin to change and at some stage Germany will be spending 2% of its GDP on defence - at which point it will be the most powerful country in Europe both economically and militarily.
London is the greatest city in the world but HMG must not fall into Mrs Thatcher's trap that "you can't buck the markets". Rather, the government must look to support the regions lest we end up with irreversible decline outside a prosperous city state.
I shall quit while I'm ahead and go and pack for my week abroad. If I don't see you again for a few days, I hope everyone has a good week.
Mind you if it had been around in the 1950s it would have been Nixon taking over...
Blair: The noteworthy thing is that Blair is almost the only politician talking sense on Brexit from either the Leave or Remain camps. If he's deemed to be yesterday's man it makes that observation even more remarkable.
We saw the film Jackie last night.
Although mainly about Jackie Kennedy (so sad) it reminded me how impressive was JFK.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
In contemporary USA 28% of the public thinks homosexuality should be unlawful. We see the liberal coastal bits over here mostly, the TV and Arts output from New York and California, there is a whole vast area of deep conservatism between the two.
Mr. Doethur, rather good comment, as many others have said.
Must agree that Germany's very prosperous but not paying its way in terms of Defence (I have sympathy with them on Aid, but I'd have more if they hadn't invited the Middle East to pop over, and don't worry about the European countries in between).
I am also flabbergasted that as many as 28% of Americans believe that about homosexuality. I understand that some are passionately religious, but freedom of religion doesn't mean the right to impose religious beliefs on others.
In general your love of Europe has blinded you completely. Their prosperity is not our prosperity. Their safety is not our safety. I know you are a patriot, but at the same time you need to know who our real friends our in this world. Germany is not on that list. When Merkel got on a platform with the Chinese premier and denounced those who oppose globalisation I thought you would come to this realisation but alas, I'm still waiting for the moment.
Must have been quite a dramatic scene.
It's all quite bizarre. I couldn't put twitter down last night. The self-righteous OTT indignation from some of the media to Trump's last tweet was epic. And exactly what he intended to provoke.
Joe Scarborough made a complete twit of himself
He compared MSNBC and a handful of corporate media outlets to the definition of the 1st Amend
And forgets that the 1st Amendment goes both ways. And isn't the fiefdom of 6 billionaires.
Joe Scarborough
Only a FAKE PRESIDENT would declare the First Amendment to be the enemy of the American people. https://t.co/ZFZvlTf8Az
"Blair argued that there was no need for a second referendum if MPs judged that people had changed their minds and wanted to remain in the EU."
That's even worse. If MPs take a subjective view (everyone at my dinner party agreed) then they can overturn the referendum.
And he thinks the voters will accept that?
Cadbury factory closure by Kraft 'despicable'
Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said Kraft's global chief executive, Irene Rosenfeld, had not given specific commitments on jobs when they met last week, but said she should have made the position clear.
"A week ago she would have known what announcement would be made, barely six days later.
"It would have been more honest if it had been more straight forward and straight dealing with the company and the workforce and also with the government if she had told me what their intentions were."
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8507780.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/17/student-lefts-culture-intolereance-creating-new-generation-ofconservatives/
In your view is being gay or lesbian something
they are born with ... 24%
due to factors such as upbringing and environment ... 33%
both ... 12%
neither ... 2%
DK ... 8%
America is definitely a different place.