Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
LOL, we could not beat a carpet
My goodness Malcolm, is something wrong? You either referred derogatorily to an independent Scotland or you announced that the UK is your country.
*Looks north apprehensively for incoming ballistic turnip*
Will she get to choose her own leaving date? Others may well wish to prepone it.
One drawback of a Prime Minister preannouncing their departure date is usually reckoned to be a severe loss of authority. Evdiently that isn't a consideration this time round.
Thank you for prepone. a word I have never heard of before.
Prepone arrived, along with the verb "to do the needful" from India, via outsourcing.
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
LOL, we could not beat a carpet
My goodness Malcolm, is something wrong? You either referred derogatorily to an independent Scotland or you announced that the UK is your country.
*Looks north apprehensively for incoming ballistic turnip*
ydoethur, unfortunately due to excess number of turnips up here we are still in shackles. Some day slavery will be abolished.
I see that Sam, one of the shrewdest gamblers I have ever known, has been banned for some ridiculously trivial post.
A pity. If it's that Sam, his comments on gambling were more perceptive and knowledgeable than mine could ever be.
I treat PB as a betting website with added debate, not a political forum with gambling tips. I hope OGH will consider letting minor offenders back in eventually, especially gambling experts.
Even MPs who say or do outrageous things are named but allowed back into the HoC after a period of 'disgrace'. Like this one ... what became of him, I wonder
...But I hope we can all grow up a bit soon, and move away from...wrongly auggesting Leavers are comparing the EU to Nazi Germany...
The EU/Nazi Germany comparison does crop up. The discussion about whether references to "Dunkirk" (the Nolan film) were coded references to such, respect for the achievements of the combatants or simply the quality of the film itself are best left to another day. But if we limit ourselves to *explicit* comparisons, here is an example from November 2016:
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
According to different sources, there are a lot countries not happy with the permanent 5. France may well give up it's seat to the EU, while the UK's coat is on a very shooglie peg, we do not have a really independent nuclear deterrent while our armed forces are now, after 7 years of "austerity", cost cutting and reductions, is no more than a joke. 1930's anyone? All while the Russians and PRC are expanding their military.
The US is now considered a Rogue State and a bully, Russia is being run by ex-KGB and crooks and the people are getting fed up with it, and with China, desperately trying to divert internal dissent by shows of outward nationalist militarism.
I cannot see too much change, although Japan and India may eventually become permanent members (though Pakistan have blocked the latter before), Germany too if there is still no EU seat
If Cameron had understood what he was doing he'd have taken the offer of associate membership and still be in office.
It's not a bad point. Unfortunately the "associate membership" you speak of was not formally offered by anybody with the power to grant it, but was instead floated (was it Delors?). There is interesting scope for a counterfactual whereby somebody other than Juncker became Commission President and could take the situation seriously enough to put together a package that would work. But absent time travel, it will forever remain a might-have-been
If Cameron had understood what he was doing he'd have taken the offer of associate membership and still be in office.
It's not a bad point. Unfortunately the "associate membership" you speak of was not formally offered by anybody with the power to grant it, but was instead floated (was it Delors?). There is interesting scope for a counterfactual whereby somebody other than Juncker became Commission President and could take the situation seriously enough to put together a package that would work. But absent time travel, it will forever remain a might-have-been
If Cameron had understood what he was doing he'd have taken the offer of associate membership and still be in office.
It's not a bad point. Unfortunately the "associate membership" you speak of was not formally offered by anybody with the power to grant it, but was instead floated (was it Delors?). There is interesting scope for a counterfactual whereby somebody other than Juncker became Commission President and could take the situation seriously enough to put together a package that would work. But absent time travel, it will forever remain a might-have-been
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
By implication you think we'll be level pegging with the EU. It's absurd.
You misunderstand. Post Brexit, the Empire will have no need of the UN. Johnny Foreigner will resume their proper function of pretending to not understand English whilst flocking to us to offer up the riches of world.
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
LOL, we could not beat a carpet
Tell that to Argentina
That is the spirit! Wave the flag of a conflict from 30 years ago and watch those Argies quakes in their boots!
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
LOL, we could not beat a carpet
Tell that to Argentina
That is the spirit! Wave the flag of a conflict from 30 years ago
If Cameron had understood what he was doing he'd have taken the offer of associate membership and still be in office.
It's not a bad point. Unfortunately the "associate membership" you speak of was not formally offered by anybody with the power to grant it, but was instead floated (was it Delors?). There is interesting scope for a counterfactual whereby somebody other than Juncker became Commission President and could take the situation seriously enough to put together a package that would work. But absent time travel, it will forever remain a might-have-been
Verhofstadt claimed he suggested it
On the other hand Cameron didnt ask for it
What would the content of such a status be? Defining it is no easier than negotiating a Brexit deal, which is probably why anyone serious dropped the idea before it got started.
If Cameron had understood what he was doing he'd have taken the offer of associate membership and still be in office.
It's not a bad point. Unfortunately the "associate membership" you speak of was not formally offered by anybody with the power to grant it, but was instead floated (was it Delors?). There is interesting scope for a counterfactual whereby somebody other than Juncker became Commission President and could take the situation seriously enough to put together a package that would work. But absent time travel, it will forever remain a might-have-been
Verhofstadt claimed he suggested it
On the other hand Cameron didnt ask for it
What would the content of such a status be? Defining it is no easier than negotiating a Brexit deal, which is probably why anyone serious dropped the idea before it got started.
yes
you tend to see our choices as full integration into the EU very quickly and full integration into the EU extremely quickly
and yet a federalist like Verhofstadt can see differences in postions as have many other EU leaders over the years
and yet a federalist like Verhofstadt can see differences in postions as have many other EU leaders over the years
The difference between me and Verhofstadt is that I care more about the interests of the UK. It may be in the EU's interests to have the UK in a semi-detached status, but it's not in ours.
and yet a federalist like Verhofstadt can see differences in postions as have many other EU leaders over the years
The difference between me and Verhofstadt is that I care more about the interests of the UK. It may be in the EU's interests to have the UK in a semi-detached status, but it's not in ours.
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
LOL, we could not beat a carpet
Tell that to Argentina
That is the spirit! Wave the flag of a conflict from 30 years ago
and yet a federalist like Verhofstadt can see differences in postions as have many other EU leaders over the years
The difference between me and Verhofstadt is that I care more about the interests of the UK. It may be in the EU's interests to have the UK in a semi-detached status, but it's not in ours.
In your view
but it's very much a unique view
It's sincere, and I couldn't wish for a better recruiting sergeant than having the Brexiteers test the alternative view to destruction.
and yet a federalist like Verhofstadt can see differences in postions as have many other EU leaders over the years
The difference between me and Verhofstadt is that I care more about the interests of the UK. It may be in the EU's interests to have the UK in a semi-detached status, but it's not in ours.
You care so much for the UK that you wish its existence to end.
If Cameron had understood what he was doing he'd have taken the offer of associate membership and still be in office.
It's not a bad point. Unfortunately the "associate membership" you speak of was not formally offered by anybody with the power to grant it, but was instead floated (was it Delors?). There is interesting scope for a counterfactual whereby somebody other than Juncker became Commission President and could take the situation seriously enough to put together a package that would work. But absent time travel, it will forever remain a might-have-been
Verhofstadt claimed he suggested it
On the other hand Cameron didnt ask for it
Thank you.
Juncker suggested it - he is quoted as such. Cameron, complacent arrogant internationalist lardbucket that he was, thought it would be much better if he could use the prospect of leaving along with his own questionable charisma to get the UK to accept the status quo forever.
and yet a federalist like Verhofstadt can see differences in postions as have many other EU leaders over the years
The difference between me and Verhofstadt is that I care more about the interests of the UK. It may be in the EU's interests to have the UK in a semi-detached status, but it's not in ours.
In your view
but it's very much a unique view
It's sincere, and I couldn't wish for a better recruiting sergeant than having the Brexiteers test the alternative view to destruction.
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
LOL, we could not beat a carpet
Tell that to Argentina
30 years ago and we just squeaked it and no more against a 4th rate army. Pretty dire when that is your only victory since we assisted in WWII.
and yet a federalist like Verhofstadt can see differences in postions as have many other EU leaders over the years
The difference between me and Verhofstadt is that I care more about the interests of the UK. It may be in the EU's interests to have the UK in a semi-detached status, but it's not in ours.
In your view
but it's very much a unique view
It's sincere, and I couldn't wish for a better recruiting sergeant than having the Brexiteers test the alternative view to destruction.
...But I hope we can all grow up a bit soon, and move away from...wrongly auggesting Leavers are comparing the EU to Nazi Germany...
The EU/Nazi Germany comparison does crop up. The discussion about whether references to "Dunkirk" (the Nolan film) were coded references to such, respect for the achievements of the combatants or simply the quality of the film itself are best left to another day. But if we limit ourselves to *explicit* comparisons, here is an example from November 2016:
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
LOL, we could not beat a carpet
Tell that to Argentina
That is the spirit! Wave the flag of a conflict from 30 years ago and watch those Argies quakes in their boots!
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
LOL, we could not beat a carpet
Tell that to Argentina
That is the spirit! Wave the flag of a conflict from 30 years ago and watch those Argies quakes in their boots!
Well it is the last war the UK has fought alone
Since PB is the home of pedantry and pickiness, I must point out the following:
1) It was not a war, it was a conflict. We never formally declared war on Argentina
2) The US supplied us with satellite intelligence, missiles and also made sure that we had adequate supplies of fuel (because we did not when we started out)
and yet a federalist like Verhofstadt can see differences in postions as have many other EU leaders over the years
The difference between me and Verhofstadt is that I care more about the interests of the UK. It may be in the EU's interests to have the UK in a semi-detached status, but it's not in ours.
In your view
but it's very much a unique view
It's sincere, and I couldn't wish for a better recruiting sergeant than having the Brexiteers test the alternative view to destruction.
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
We may rejoin the EEA and join EFTA in a decade or two, after a few years of falling immigration, I cannot see us ever rejoining the EU now especially if that requires joining the Eurozone
If Cameron had understood what he was doing he'd have taken the offer of associate membership and still be in office
His career will be an interesting one to write up, so much promise and so little delivered.
I don't think Associate Membership was ever actually on offer. It was what I proposed that Cameron went for: that he gathered together all the EU countries who weren't that keen on the political part of the EU (Sweden, Denmark, Poland, possibly Finland), and formed a grouping with them. There would be a common set of goals of this group, in particular to recognise that there was a contradiction between the need of the Eurozone to integrate further, and a need of the rest to resist that.
I always thought that was room for a compromise position, where there would be a series of Associate Members with their own set of rules, and who were part of the Common Market, but only the Common Market.
But David Cameron decided to go for a quick deal and a quick referendum, and to avoid a negotiation process that would have lasted years (bringing together the four or five countries that might become Associate Members would have been non trivial in itself). And we all know the consequence of that.
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
LOL, we could not beat a carpet
Tell that to Argentina
That is the spirit! Wave the flag of a conflict from 30 years ago and watch those Argies quakes in their boots!
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
LOL, we could not beat a carpet
Tell that to Argentina
That is the spirit! Wave the flag of a conflict from 30 years ago and watch those Argies quakes in their boots!
Well it is the last war the UK has fought alone
Since PB is the home of pedantry and pickiness, I must point out the following:
1) It was not a war, it was a conflict. We never formally declared war on Argentina
2) The US supplied us with satellite intelligence, missiles and also made sure that we had adequate supplies of fuel (because we did not when we started out)
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
But David Cameron decided to go for a quick deal and a quick referendum, and to avoid a negotiation process that would have lasted years (bringing together the four or five countries that might become Associate Members would have been non trivial in itself). And we all know the consequence of that.
I wonder how many Leave voters realised they were really voting against the idea of a two-speed Europe, and what the ultimate result of that would be.
FRANCE was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war, providing secret information to enable MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles which were desperately sought by Argentina, according to Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict.
In his memoirs he reveals that while President Reagan was pressurising Lady Thatcher to accept a negotiated settlement France helped Britain to win the conflict.
Assuming of course that nobody changes their mind.
As one of the constants in British life is a dislike of change, the change of Brexit is likely tobe unpopular. Between this and the demographic change (including a couple of million naturalising EU citizens) I am confident that we will have at least one of the big two parties campaigning on a rejoin manifesto before I retire. Britons will soon tire of being sidelined.
Sunday lunch in the glorious sunshine is on its way. Bootiful.
Our "place at the top table" in the world has the recurring effect of fits of embarrassment so bad I want to hacksaw my own head off every 3 or 4 years when the current PM crawls up the fundament of the current POTUS to reaffirm the special relationship, and the one-off (I hope) opportunity to play a very special part in the killing of several hundred thousand inoffensive and non-combatant brown people. I would be very, very happy to see my country sidelined down to a position where it was level pegging with the Faroe Islands.
We often get told that we "punch above our weight" which generally means getting pounded...
As one of the 5 permanent UN Security Council Members and with the legacy of Empire for good or ill we will always be in the upper middle tier of world powers after the US, China and Russia
LOL, we could not beat a carpet
Tell that to Argentina
That is the spirit! Wave the flag of a conflict from 30 years ago and watch those Argies quakes in their boots!
Well it is the last war the UK has fought alone
Since PB is the home of pedantry and pickiness, I must point out the following:
1) It was not a war, it was a conflict. We never formally declared war on Argentina
2) The US supplied us with satellite intelligence, missiles and also made sure that we had adequate supplies of fuel (because we did not when we started out)
Oh, did we get the missiles free? Uncharacteristically generous of Uncle Sam.
If Cameron had understood what he was doing he'd have taken the offer of associate membership and still be in office.
It's not a bad point. Unfortunately the "associate membership" you speak of was not formally offered by anybody with the power to grant it, but was instead floated (was it Delors?). There is interesting scope for a counterfactual whereby somebody other than Juncker became Commission President and could take the situation seriously enough to put together a package that would work. But absent time travel, it will forever remain a might-have-been
FRANCE was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war, providing secret information to enable MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles which were desperately sought by Argentina, according to Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict.
In his memoirs he reveals that while President Reagan was pressurising Lady Thatcher to accept a negotiated settlement France helped Britain to win the conflict.
France followed its own interests, which required the Falklands to be recovered.
Because if they weren't then there was nothing to stop all those French overseas territories being seized by other countries.
FRANCE was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war, providing secret information to enable MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles which were desperately sought by Argentina, according to Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict.
In his memoirs he reveals that while President Reagan was pressurising Lady Thatcher to accept a negotiated settlement France helped Britain to win the conflict.
France followed its own interests, which required the Falklands to be recovered.
Because if they weren't then there was nothing to stop all those French overseas territories being seized by other countries.
It just goes to show how closely aligned the interests of Old Europe are. Almost worth formalising it in some kind of political union to make our voice carry more weight.
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
Didn't the French stop supplying the Argentinians with weapons after invasion, much to the anger of the Junta? My understanding is that Thatcher and Mitterrand reached agreement early on, and he stood up to the entire French establishment.
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
Didn't the French stop supplying the Argentinians with weapons after invasion, much to the anger of the Junta? My understanding is that Thatcher and Mitterrand reached agreement early on, and he stood up to the entire French establishment.
I'm eating a delicious brown bread with pumpkin seeds
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
Didn't the French stop supplying the Argentinians with weapons after invasion, much to the anger of the Junta? My understanding is that Thatcher and Mitterrand reached agreement early on, and he stood up to the entire French establishment.
That Telegraph article has some further details:
"In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies," Sir John says. As soon as the conflict began, France made available to Britain Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft - which it had supplied to Argentina - so Harrier pilots could train against them.
The French gave Britain information on the Exocet - which sank the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor - showing how to tamper with it.
"A remarkable worldwide operation then ensued to prevent further Exocets being bought by Argentina," Sir John says.
"I authorised our agents to pose as bona fide purchasers of equipment on the international market, ensuring that we outbid the Argentinians, and other agents identified Exocet missiles in markets and rendered them inoperable."
He contrasts the French attitude with America's attempts to find a face-saving deal for President Galtieri, the Argentine dictator."For all Margaret Thatcher's friendship with Ronald Reagan, he remained a West Coast American looking south to Latin America and west to the Pacific. Sometimes I wondered if he even knew or cared where Europe was."
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
Didn't the French stop supplying the Argentinians with weapons after invasion, much to the anger of the Junta? My understanding is that Thatcher and Mitterrand reached agreement early on, and he stood up to the entire French establishment.
The French were very cooperative at the governmental level. Aerospatiale, the supplier of Exocet, however fixed a problem that the Argentinians had with the launcher and so enabled them to be used, contrary to the agreement the French had with the British not to help the Argentinians. It wasn't clear whether the French government was genuinely embarrassed by this or there was a degree of collusion.
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
...and here we go again. The French supplied Argentina with Exocets and aircraft (Super Etandards & Mirages), and they were used to sink British ships. The Americans supplied Argentina with bombs and aircraft (Skyhawks) and ships (eg the General Belgrano used to be the USS Phoenix), and they were used to sink British ships. Even the British supplied Argentina with bombs and ships (Veinticinco de Mayo, Hércules, Santísima Trinidad)...but you get the point.
All of these helped us during the war; the French stopped selling missiles to the Argentinians and the Anericans (after some convincing, which is why Casper Weinberger got a honorary knighthood) came down on our side. If memory serves, the Australians also offered help but it was too far away, and Chile also helped. Oddly enough, one of the nations to vote against the UK in the UN was (IIRC) Ireland, but my copy of Hastings's Battle For The Falklands is in my digs and I can't check.
22:03 Local Time, 16:33 GMT, 22:03 IST: Some announcements are being made through the PA system, but it doesn't seem to be helping too much. 21:58 Local Time, 16:28 GMT, 21:58 IST: Oh dear, there's some bottling going on by the Sri Lankan spectators, clearly agitated by the team's performance. It's very reminiscent of Cuttack in 2015, when India played South Africa. Not good business - holding the match hostage like this. The players and umpires have gathered towards the pitch, waiting for the situation to be brought under control. That's the best they can do.
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
...and here we go again. The French supplied Argentina with Exocets and aircraft (Super Etandards & Mirages), and they were used to sink British ships. The Americans supplied Argentina with bombs and aircraft (Skyhawks) and ships (eg the General Belgrano used to be the USS Phoenix), and they were used to sink British ships. Even the British supplied Argentina with bombs and ships (Veinticinco de Mayo, Hércules, Santísima Trinidad)...but you get the point.
(snip)
Didn't the French also provide intel as to how to disable their missiles? Or am I misremembering... it would probably be a terrible idea from a business perspective!
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
...and here we go again. The French supplied Argentina with Exocets and aircraft (Super Etandards & Mirages), and they were used to sink British ships. The Americans supplied Argentina with bombs and aircraft (Skyhawks) and ships (eg the General Belgrano used to be the USS Phoenix), and they were used to sink British ships. Even the British supplied Argentina with bombs and ships (Veinticinco de Mayo, Hércules, Santísima Trinidad)...but you get the point.
All of these helped us during the war; the French stopped selling missiles to the Argentinians and the Anericans (after some convincing, which is why Casper Weinberger got a honorary knighthood) came down on our side. If memory serves, the Australians also offered help but it was too far away, and Chile also helped. Oddly enough, one of the nations to vote against the UK in the UN was (IIRC) Ireland, but my copy of Hastings's Battle For The Falklands is in my digs and I can't check.
No, Ireland voted in favour, because they are big on self-determination. Spain voted against.
Then ten votes in favour of Britain's resolution 502 were UK, US, France, Ireland, Guyana, Togo, Zaire, Japan, Uganda and - after a major wobble where they backed both sides - Jordan.
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
...and here we go again. The French supplied Argentina with Exocets and aircraft (Super Etandards & Mirages), and they were used to sink British ships. The Americans supplied Argentina with bombs and aircraft (Skyhawks) and ships (eg the General Belgrano used to be the USS Phoenix), and they were used to sink British ships. Even the British supplied Argentina with bombs and ships (Veinticinco de Mayo, Hércules, Santísima Trinidad)...but you get the point.
(snip)
Didn't the French also provide intel as to how to disable their missiles? Or am I misremembering... it would probably be a terrible idea from a business perspective!
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
...and here we go again. The French supplied Argentina with Exocets and aircraft (Super Etandards & Mirages), and they were used to sink British ships. The Americans supplied Argentina with bombs and aircraft (Skyhawks) and ships (eg the General Belgrano used to be the USS Phoenix), and they were used to sink British ships. Even the British supplied Argentina with bombs and ships (Veinticinco de Mayo, Hércules, Santísima Trinidad)...but you get the point.
All of these helped us during the war; the French stopped selling missiles to the Argentinians and the Anericans (after some convincing, which is why Casper Weinberger got a honorary knighthood) came down on our side. If memory serves, the Australians also offered help but it was too far away, and Chile also helped. Oddly enough, one of the nations to vote against the UK in the UN was (IIRC) Ireland, but my copy of Hastings's Battle For The Falklands is in my digs and I can't check.
No, Ireland voted in favour, because they are big on self-determination. Spain voted against.
Then ten votes in favour of Britain's resolution 502 were UK, US, France, Ireland, Guyana, Togo, Zaire, Japan, Uganda and - after a major wobble where they backed both sides - Jordan.
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
...and here we go again. The French supplied Argentina with Exocets and aircraft (Super Etandards & Mirages), and they were used to sink British ships. The Americans supplied Argentina with bombs and aircraft (Skyhawks) and ships (eg the General Belgrano used to be the USS Phoenix), and they were used to sink British ships. Even the British supplied Argentina with bombs and ships (Veinticinco de Mayo, Hércules, Santísima Trinidad)...but you get the point.
All of these helped us during the war; the French stopped selling missiles to the Argentinians and the Anericans (after some convincing, which is why Casper Weinberger got a honorary knighthood) came down on our side. If memory serves, the Australians also offered help but it was too far away, and Chile also helped. Oddly enough, one of the nations to vote against the UK in the UN was (IIRC) Ireland, but my copy of Hastings's Battle For The Falklands is in my digs and I can't check.
No, Ireland voted in favour, because they are big on self-determination. Spain voted against.
Then ten votes in favour of Britain's resolution 502 were UK, US, France, Ireland, Guyana, Togo, Zaire, Japan, Uganda and - after a major wobble where they backed both sides - Jordan.
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
...and here we go again. The French supplied Argentina with Exocets and aircraft (Super Etandards & Mirages), and they were used to sink British ships. The Americans supplied Argentina with bombs and aircraft (Skyhawks) and ships (eg the General Belgrano used to be the USS Phoenix), and they were used to sink British ships. Even the British supplied Argentina with bombs and ships (Veinticinco de Mayo, Hércules, Santísima Trinidad)...but you get the point.
All of these helped us during the war; the French stopped selling missiles to the Argentinians and the Anericans (after some convincing, which is why Casper Weinberger got a honorary knighthood) came down on our side. If memory serves, the Australians also offered help but it was too far away, and Chile also helped. Oddly enough, one of the nations to vote against the UK in the UN was (IIRC) Ireland, but my copy of Hastings's Battle For The Falklands is in my digs and I can't check.
No, Ireland voted in favour, because they are big on self-determination. Spain voted against.
Then ten votes in favour of Britain's resolution 502 were UK, US, France, Ireland, Guyana, Togo, Zaire, Japan, Uganda and - after a major wobble where they backed both sides - Jordan.
If that is the case then the Scottish Labour Party's situation may develop in a way not necessarily to their advantage.
For some reason Labour MPs occasionally pop up to say things like "We should have a UK wide NHS with control from Westninster" the logical conclusion of which is the end of devolution.
If that is the case then the Scottish Labour Party's situation may develop in a way not necessarily to their advantage.
For some reason Labour MPs occasionally pop up to say things like "We should have a UK wide NHS with control from Westninster" the logical conclusion of which is the end of devolution.
This is why Corbyn or Boris is not up to being PM.
Because they are utterly incapable of thinking before speaking. As a result, they are incoherent and their policy positions are usually either contradictory or straightforwardly impossible. Cf the tuition fees debacle.
Other people who have a similar shortcoming - Donald Trump, Jean Claude Juncker, Kim Jong Un...not the happiest of lists!
Edit - I suppose we do know that Corbyn isn't in favour of unitary government? He is from the left and they do tend to favour tight central control so they can direct things.
If that is the case then the Scottish Labour Party's situation may develop in a way not necessarily to their advantage.
For some reason Labour MPs occasionally pop up to say things like "We should have a UK wide NHS with control from Westninster" the logical conclusion of which is the end of devolution.
This is why Corbyn or Boris is not up to being PM.
Because they are utterly incapable of thinking before speaking. As a result, they are incoherent and their policy positions are usually either contradictory or straightforwardly impossible. Cf the tuition fees debacle.
Other people who have a similar shortcoming - Donald Trump, Jean Claude Juncker, Kim Jong Un...not the happiest of lists!
Edit - I suppose we do know that Corbyn isn't in favour of unitary government? He is from the left and they do tend to favour tight central control so they can direct things.
I'm not sure its not the happiest of lists. I always think before I speak, but I've not successful enough yet to be POTUS, Labour leader, whatever Juncker is, or indeed dictator of South Korea.
If that is the case then the Scottish Labour Party's situation may develop in a way not necessarily to their advantage.
For some reason Labour MPs occasionally pop up to say things like "We should have a UK wide NHS with control from Westninster" the logical conclusion of which is the end of devolution.
This is why Corbyn or Boris is not up to being PM.
Because they are utterly incapable of thinking before speaking. As a result, they are incoherent and their policy positions are usually either contradictory or straightforwardly impossible. Cf the tuition fees debacle.
Other people who have a similar shortcoming - Donald Trump, Jean Claude Juncker, Kim Jong Un...not the happiest of lists!
Edit - I suppose we do know that Corbyn isn't in favour of unitary government? He is from the left and they do tend to favour tight central control so they can direct things.
I'm not sure its not the happiest of lists. I always think before I speak, but I've not successful enough yet to be POTUS, Labour leader, whatever Juncker is, or indeed dictator of South Korea.
King, I think, not dictator (and of course it's North Korea).
Ok, so there are silly people everywhere. But we need to get a move on. Security just watching people throw bottles. Doing nothing.
Similar thing happened in about 1996 when India were playing Sri Lanka and the match had to be abandoned because the Indian spectators were starting fires in the stands and throwing things on to the field because Sri Lanka were heading for an unexpected win.
Comments
*Looks north apprehensively for incoming ballistic turnip*
England 2.04 / 2.08
West Indies 2.92 / 2.94
Draw 5.6 / 5.9
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.133436446
http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/dani-garavelli-davidson-s-mask-slips-over-rogue-tories-1-4543130
Admittedly they had a stronger position than the West Indies do, but...
You forget Broad's 169.
'...The current German agenda is to achieve by peaceful means via the EU what the militarism of the German imperialists and the brutality of the Nazis failed to achieve on a permanent basis, namely a Großdeutsches Reich from Brest (-Litewsk) to Brest (Llydaw).
The majority of the British people didn't want to be ruled from Berlin in 1914 or 1939, and the Brexit vote was heavily influenced by those who remembered, or whose parents recalled, these previous eras...'
On the other hand Cameron didnt ask for it
F1: entertaining race, but I am wondering if I accidentally offended a witch a few weeks ago.
you tend to see our choices as full integration into the EU very quickly and full integration into the EU extremely quickly
and yet a federalist like Verhofstadt can see differences in postions as have many other EU leaders over the years
but it's very much a unique view
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/belgium-post-race-analysismortem-2017.html
Here's Cara Delevigne in a bikini
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2017/08/26/01002-20170826LIVWWW00033-en-direct-le-live-politique-du-week-end-des-26-et-27-aout-2017.php
more people will look at that post than all of yours put together
get real you are a blogger on a wonk blog and from what I can see few people on this blog have changed their views since June last year
so while your views are honest and sincerely held, thyre not infectious
Since then he has lost confidence in his batting.
Apparently, Perez has 0 for his little fracas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/14/boris-johnson-the-eu-wants-a-superstate-just-as-hitler-did/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/15/boris-johnson-likens-eu-to-nazi-superstate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/15/brexit-tories-back-boris-johnson-saying-his-eunazi-germany-compa/
That was the most depressing time of the EU referendum by far, 'if we stay = Nazi superstate', 'if we leave = WW3' (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brexit-could-trigger-world-war-7928607).
Did you back Perez to finish or to be classified? He was classified but didn’t finish.
Back to Ballance ?
1) It was not a war, it was a conflict. We never formally declared war on Argentina
2) The US supplied us with satellite intelligence, missiles and also made sure that we had adequate supplies of fuel (because we did not when we started out)
I always thought that was room for a compromise position, where there would be a series of Associate Members with their own set of rules, and who were part of the Common Market, but only the Common Market.
But David Cameron decided to go for a quick deal and a quick referendum, and to avoid a negotiation process that would have lasted years (bringing together the four or five countries that might become Associate Members would have been non trivial in itself). And we all know the consequence of that.
Whilst the French supplied the Argentina regime with Excocet missiles.
FRANCE was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war, providing secret information to enable MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles which were desperately sought by Argentina, according to Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict.
In his memoirs he reveals that while President Reagan was pressurising Lady Thatcher to accept a negotiated settlement France helped Britain to win the conflict.
Because if they weren't then there was nothing to stop all those French overseas territories being seized by other countries.
"In so many ways Mitterrand and the French were our greatest allies," Sir John says. As soon as the conflict began, France made available to Britain Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft - which it had supplied to Argentina - so Harrier pilots could train against them.
The French gave Britain information on the Exocet - which sank the Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor - showing how to tamper with it.
"A remarkable worldwide operation then ensued to prevent further Exocets being bought by Argentina," Sir John says.
"I authorised our agents to pose as bona fide purchasers of equipment on the international market, ensuring that we outbid the Argentinians, and other agents identified Exocet missiles in markets and rendered them inoperable."
He contrasts the French attitude with America's attempts to find a face-saving deal for President Galtieri, the Argentine dictator."For all Margaret Thatcher's friendship with Ronald Reagan, he remained a West Coast American looking south to Latin America and west to the Pacific. Sometimes I wondered if he even knew or cared where Europe was."
"more people will look at that post than all of yours put together."
I certainly looked but couldn't find the picture. And let's honest, more people will look at Cara dev-wotsit dressed than read Mr Glenn's posts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4826500/Swimsuit-clad-Cara-Poppy-Delevingne-party-St-Tropez.html
the germans are laughing at him
All of these helped us during the war; the French stopped selling missiles to the Argentinians and the Anericans (after some convincing, which is why Casper Weinberger got a honorary knighthood) came down on our side. If memory serves, the Australians also offered help but it was too far away, and Chile also helped. Oddly enough, one of the nations to vote against the UK in the UN was (IIRC) Ireland, but my copy of Hastings's Battle For The Falklands is in my digs and I can't check.
But if that doesn't convince you, try this
'...I was particularly grateful to President Mitterrand, who with the leaders of the Old Commonwealth, was among the staunchest of our friends and who telephoned me personally to pledge support on Saturday [3 April 1982]. (I was to have many disputes with President Mitterrand in later years, but I never forgot the debt we owed him for his personal support on this occasion and throughout the Falklands crisis). France used her influence in the UN to swing others in our favour...", Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (1993)
He is the most boring politician i can remember. He makes Gordon Brown look like Mr personality.
If he becomes the PLP poster boy he may come in from 7/1 so trading bet?? but IMO the membership would like him as much as Leicester Liz (Ms 4%)
He has zero chance of winning under the current Labour rules A bit of Blairite Gerrymandering with the system his chances improve.
21:58 Local Time, 16:28 GMT, 21:58 IST: Oh dear, there's some bottling going on by the Sri Lankan spectators, clearly agitated by the team's performance. It's very reminiscent of Cuttack in 2015, when India played South Africa. Not good business - holding the match hostage like this. The players and umpires have gathered towards the pitch, waiting for the situation to be brought under control. That's the best they can do.
Then ten votes in favour of Britain's resolution 502 were UK, US, France, Ireland, Guyana, Togo, Zaire, Japan, Uganda and - after a major wobble where they backed both sides - Jordan.
If that is the case then the Scottish Labour Party's situation may develop in a way not necessarily to their advantage.
Corbyns's recent comments are in that vein.
https://twitter.com/endless_psych/status/901837170884972545
Because they are utterly incapable of thinking before speaking. As a result, they are incoherent and their policy positions are usually either contradictory or straightforwardly impossible. Cf the tuition fees debacle.
Other people who have a similar shortcoming - Donald Trump, Jean Claude Juncker, Kim Jong Un...not the happiest of lists!
Edit - I suppose we do know that Corbyn isn't in favour of unitary government? He is from the left and they do tend to favour tight central control so they can direct things.
I'll give you the others!
It appears the Confederates have won in one way, at least:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/24/oldest-civil-war-pensioner/599159001/