Pound rises over 1.15 euros today following sub par Eurozone Economic Statistics
There's a big worry that the Eurozone boost is almost entirely down to the huge ECB bond buying programme and now that it's being wound down Eurozone growth will follow suit. It's worrying for the UK since we do a plurality of our trade with EMU nations, a slowdown there would knock off half a percentage point from growth.
It all depends whether you consider being a Pacifist to be all or nothing, when surely there are degrees of Pacifism.
"And this seems to be the point about Mr Corbyn's attitude to military action. He thinks it should only be done as a last resort - and only then if the United Nations agrees to it"
Yes, but that's not what he was saying in 2015, when he was saying he couldn't be definite about being an absolute (in his words, 'total') pacifist while giving the clear impression if forced into a choice that that is what he would say.
It may be of course that he was lying then.
(Incidentally there are no degrees of pacifism. A pacifist is somebody who is always opposed as a matter of conscience to violence and rejects it as an option. You are a pacifist, or you are not. If you espouse violence as an option, at any point, you are not or cease to be a pacifist. Otherwise it is like saying something is 'slightly morally wrong.')
Taken to its logical conclusion Pacifism leads to the ultimate extinction of Pacifism.
If the US and UK had refused to fight Hitler, he’d have eventually secured everything he wanted. That might have included a puppet Government here supplying troops for him, and doing his bidding, including the deportation and murder of Jews and “undesirables”, or a full conquest with even harsher repression.
Pacifists would have then had nowhere to go, and would have been forced to become active or passive Fascists, or die.
There was a rather good Alt History short story on this - The Germans win WWII and take control of India. Ghandi etc. oppose them with no-violence. The Nazis do what they did in Russia.....
I think it may have been in the "Alternate Generals" collection. Another good story is "Tradition" by Elizabeth Moon - which if you draw some parallels from it, illuminates more recent events....
I couldn’t wait to get off buses when I passed my driving test, and I haven’t looked back since.
I used them a bit as a student in Bristol to get around the City, particularly at night to save on taxis, and was happy to pay the £1.50 fare, but that’s it. Haven’t used them since in 15 years unless I’ve had no alternative. They are really only used by schoolkids, students, pensioners, those on benefits, or nerds. I can’t think of anyone serious who works who uses them, and it’s a miracle they raise anything in fares at all.
London is the exception to the rule.
The Edinburgh buses are really good. Lothian Buses resisted the arrival of StageCoach though...
I live in Edinburgh without a car. I am not anti-car and would get one if I felt a need for it. No-one thinks I am eccentric in this respect. A public transport system that is good enough for most people living in a city as their primary mode of travel is an expectation that is both reasonable and attainable in my view. Most cities fall short. If you live in the country or the suburbs, your needs will be different.
The National Enquirer magazine paid Donald Trump's doorman $30,000 to prevent him publicly speaking about a rumour he fathered a love child, it has emerged.
Oddly this was never a problem for me when I was young, became a problem for my twenties and then ceased being a problem again. I can knit, checking pattern directions, while in a car with no trouble at all these days.
It all depends whether you consider being a Pacifist to be all or nothing, when surely there are degrees of Pacifism.
"And this seems to be the point about Mr Corbyn's attitude to military action. He thinks it should only be done as a last resort - and only then if the United Nations agrees to it"
Yes, but that's not what he was saying in 2015, when he was saying he couldn't be definite about being an absolute (in his words, 'total') pacifist while giving the clear impression if forced into a choice that that is what he would say.
It may be of course that he was lying then.
(Incidentally there are no degrees of pacifism. A pacifist is somebody who is always opposed as a matter of conscience to violence and rejects it as an option. You are a pacifist, or you are not. If you espouse violence as an option, at any point, you are not or cease to be a pacifist. Otherwise it is like saying something is 'slightly morally wrong.')
Taken to its logical conclusion Pacifism leads to the ultimate extinction of Pacifism.
If the US and UK had refused to fight Hitler, he’d have eventually secured everything he wanted. That might have included a puppet Government here supplying troops for him, and doing his bidding, including the deportation and murder of Jews and “undesirables”, or a full conquest with even harsher repression.
Pacifists would have then had nowhere to go, and would have been forced to become active or passive Fascists, or die.
There was a rather good Alt History short story on this - The Germans win WWII and take control of India. Ghandi etc. oppose them with no-violence. The Nazis do what they did in Russia.....
I think it may have been in the "Alternate Generals" collection. Another good story is "Tradition" by Elizabeth Moon - which if you draw some parallels from it, illuminates more recent events....
Re the earlier comment on Uber - yes young people use Uber a lot. But it’s not the only form of transport we use. A lot of us still get buses and the tube (I don’t know where his idea young people don’t use buses comes from).
Because getting on the bus means having to deal with bus people.
When I was in London, I'd regularly take the bus.
(Disclaimer: some ignorant people may not think I am young.)
I far prefer the bus to the tube.
London buses are better than the London underground for tourism travel.
Don't know how they compare for commuting or travel in the suburbs.
Love it. In fairness, it isn't only Corbynistas who think that way (nor do all Corbynistas think so), but it's funny nonetheless.
I still adore that just because blindly believing anything we're told would indeed be silly, that proof (or usually 'PROOF') is demanded to insane degrees, and even when there is some, it never halts people saying 'there's no proof'.
Just take this little thread from the Salisbury local paper's story on a Russian tv crew being criticised by the hopsital. Note the great phrasing of 'do you have proof?' as if any random bozos would.
scarlet banner 7 hrs ago is this a joke? the BBC and other media were in and out of SDH all day on friday last week waiting for Ms Skripal to be discharged,I know ,i was there and was interviewed by them,whats the difference? none.
Last Updated: 5 hrs ago 3 geoffp 5 hrs ago Well they are state funded by the state that likely poisoned her, so there's that.
Last Updated: 2 hrs ago 3 Johnny Jarvis 5 hrs ago
geoffp wrote: Well they are state funded by the state that likely poisoned her, so there's that.
Do you have proof?
Last Updated: 3 hrs ago 1 geoffp 5 hrs ago I said 'likely' try reading before commenting.
Last Updated: 2 hrs ago 1 Vernon Demerest 2 hrs ago Do you have proof that they "likely" poisoned her?
It all depends whether you consider being a Pacifist to be all or nothing, when surely there are degrees of Pacifism.
"And this seems to be the point about Mr Corbyn's attitude to military action. He thinks it should only be done as a last resort - and only then if the United Nations agrees to it"
Yes, but that's not what he was saying in 2015, when he was saying he couldn't be definite about being an absolute (in his words, 'total') pacifist while giving the clear impression if forced into a choice that that is what he would say.
It may be of course that he was lying then.
(Incidentally there are no degrees of pacifism. A pacifist is somebody who is always opposed as a matter of conscience to violence and rejects it as an option. You are a pacifist, or you are not. If you espouse violence as an option, at any point, you are not or cease to be a pacifist. Otherwise it is like saying something is 'slightly morally wrong.')
Taken to its logical conclusion Pacifism leads to the ultimate extinction of Pacifism.
If the US and UK had refused to fight Hitler, he’d have eventually secured everything he wanted. That might have included a puppet Government here supplying troops for him, and doing his bidding, including the deportation and murder of Jews and “undesirables”, or a full conquest with even harsher repression.
Pacifists would have then had nowhere to go, and would have been forced to become active or passive Fascists, or die.
There was a rather good Alt History short story on this - The Germans win WWII and take control of India. Ghandi etc. oppose them with no-violence. The Nazis do what they did in Russia.....
I think it may have been in the "Alternate Generals" collection. Another good story is "Tradition" by Elizabeth Moon - which if you draw some parallels from it, illuminates more recent events....
The Nazis would never have stopped, in my view.
Well, that was the point of the story - pacifism works against people who have the concept of shame in their culture. The Nazis would barely have noticed their names on the carefully typed, numbered lists.
The Nazi's would have courtmartialled Dyer - for not doing a thorough job.
Interesting it feels the need to state every member made a contribution - not trusting in collective responsibility alone to make the point of being united?
But the Archduke was planning to liberalise treatment of Serbians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire* - murdering him made no sense. The Serbian must have been framed by the Israelis!!!
*In fact, this planned liberalisation was a good part of why he was targeted - making Serbians happy(er) to be in the AH Empire was not something the Black Hand wanted.
He sets out the pros and cons and then utterly fails to come up with a viable way to punish Assad. If he were to advocate a full scale escalation with Western troops invading Syria to remove Assad then he would at least have a suggestion that matched his rhetoric even if it were to lead to a direct confrontation with Russia and Iran. But he won't do that.
All he has is doing mimicking General Melchet.
'Doing precisely what we have done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they will expect us to do this time."
Interesting it feels the need to state every member made a contribution - not trusting in collective responsibility alone to make the point of being united?
Or it may have been a euphemistic reference to Messrs Williamson, Gove, Johnson, and Fox, who are all very large members.
I see it expects the Tories to 'narrowly avoid their worst ever set of results in terms of councils controlled'. So we know if it is a really bad night the Tories will be clinging to that kind of line.
LDs losing ground across all London apart from SW London sounds bad, even knowing SW london is the focus of their strength.
He sets out the pros and cons and then utterly fails to come up with a viable way to punish Assad. If he were to advocate a full scale escalation with Western troops invading Syria to remove Assad then he would at least have a suggestion that matched his rhetoric even if it were to lead to a direct confrontation with Russia and Iran. But he won't do that.
All he has is doing mimicking General Melchet.
'Doing precisely what we have done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they will expect us to do this time."
Two things that matter to Assad -
1) His air defence systems (missiles & radars) 2) His airforce.
He sets out the pros and cons and then utterly fails to come up with a viable way to punish Assad. If he were to advocate a full scale escalation with Western troops invading Syria to remove Assad then he would at least have a suggestion that matched his rhetoric even if it were to lead to a direct confrontation with Russia and Iran. But he won't do that.
All he has is doing mimicking General Melchet.
'Doing precisely what we have done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they will expect us to do this time."
Two things that matter to Assad -
1) His air defence systems (missiles & radars) 2) His airforce.
destroy either of those and he will not be happy.
Assad's main air defence is provided by and manned by Russians. Irrespective of how good or bad the system actually is, you really think we should start targeting Russians directly?
He sets out the pros and cons and then utterly fails to come up with a viable way to punish Assad. If he were to advocate a full scale escalation with Western troops invading Syria to remove Assad then he would at least have a suggestion that matched his rhetoric even if it were to lead to a direct confrontation with Russia and Iran. But he won't do that.
All he has is doing mimicking General Melchet.
'Doing precisely what we have done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they will expect us to do this time."
I think that’s spot on and another excellent post from you Richard. I’m surprised at the (half hearted) hawkishness from Josias, less so from Casino, who strikes me as a little bit of a toy soldier nerd. I’m not a pacifist, but the case for a strike simply isn’t there - it is hard to see what it will achieve.
Pound rises over 1.15 euros today following sub par Eurozone Economic Statistics
Neither of those things are good for the UK economy.
Strange - when it fell post Brexit we were told it was really bad.
So which is it?
Unfair to Richard who was consistent in his view that the drop in the pound was good news for the UK. I happen to agree with him and am sorry to see the pound rising again.
Of course there is a difference between the reasons why the pound rises and falls and the effect of it doing so. It could be that from the point of view of a Pro-EU advocate the reasons for the pound falling last year was bad but the effect of that fall was good.
Pound rises over 1.15 euros today following sub par Eurozone Economic Statistics
Neither of those things are good for the UK economy.
Strange - when it fell post Brexit we were told it was really bad.
So which is it?
Sigh - it is very simple
If the pound falls against the Euro because of Brexit it is bad for the UK economy. If the pound rises against the Euro because of Brexit it is bad for the UK economy.
If the pound fell against the Euro because of Brexit didn't happen it would have been good for the UK economy. If the pound rises against the Euro because of Brexit didn't happen it would have been good for the UK economy.
Interesting it feels the need to state every member made a contribution - not trusting in collective responsibility alone to make the point of being united?
It is good they are united , in following Trumps response .What will the UK do to assist the USa ?
He sets out the pros and cons and then utterly fails to come up with a viable way to punish Assad. If he were to advocate a full scale escalation with Western troops invading Syria to remove Assad then he would at least have a suggestion that matched his rhetoric even if it were to lead to a direct confrontation with Russia and Iran. But he won't do that.
All he has is doing mimicking General Melchet.
'Doing precisely what we have done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they will expect us to do this time."
Two things that matter to Assad -
1) His air defence systems (missiles & radars) 2) His airforce.
destroy either of those and he will not be happy.
Assad's main air defence is provided by and manned by Russians. Irrespective of how good or bad the system actually is, you really think we should start targeting Russians directly?
1) You may note that even Trump was giving the Russians notice 2) Much of the Russian involvement is "mercenaries" - several hundred were kill by US airstrikes a couple of weeks back. Moscow barely turned a hair.
He sets out the pros and cons and then utterly fails to come up with a viable way to punish Assad. If he were to advocate a full scale escalation with Western troops invading Syria to remove Assad then he would at least have a suggestion that matched his rhetoric even if it were to lead to a direct confrontation with Russia and Iran. But he won't do that.
All he has is doing mimicking General Melchet.
'Doing precisely what we have done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they will expect us to do this time."
Nah, that's really not what I'm doing. Besides, I could never grow a moustache as glorious as Melchett's.
He sets out the pros and cons and then utterly fails to come up with a viable way to punish Assad. If he were to advocate a full scale escalation with Western troops invading Syria to remove Assad then he would at least have a suggestion that matched his rhetoric even if it were to lead to a direct confrontation with Russia and Iran. But he won't do that.
All he has is doing mimicking General Melchet.
'Doing precisely what we have done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they will expect us to do this time."
Two things that matter to Assad -
1) His air defence systems (missiles & radars) 2) His airforce.
destroy either of those and he will not be happy.
Assad's main air defence is provided by and manned by Russians. Irrespective of how good or bad the system actually is, you really think we should start targeting Russians directly?
The Russians are threatening to attack the airfields and ships any missiles are launched from -do you really think they should be targeting Americans directly?
Besides - they have been warned - last time they kept out of the way.
Interesting it feels the need to state every member made a contribution - not trusting in collective responsibility alone to make the point of being united?
It is good they are united , in following Trumps response .What will the UK do to assist the USa ?
I think that we will assist but US and France in particular will do the heavy lifting. Macron has been leading the charge today. It will be important to see how much support there is with our allies and NATO.
If action is taken it has to be to rid Assad of the ability to make and use chemical weapons. Nothing else and no regime change
He sets out the pros and cons and then utterly fails to come up with a viable way to punish Assad. If he were to advocate a full scale escalation with Western troops invading Syria to remove Assad then he would at least have a suggestion that matched his rhetoric even if it were to lead to a direct confrontation with Russia and Iran. But he won't do that.
All he has is doing mimicking General Melchet.
'Doing precisely what we have done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they will expect us to do this time."
Nah, that's really not what I'm doing. Besides, I could never grow a moustache as glorious as Melchett's.
Can you make sheep noises as impressive as Melchett's though?
He sets out the pros and cons and then utterly fails to come up with a viable way to punish Assad. If he were to advocate a full scale escalation with Western troops invading Syria to remove Assad then he would at least have a suggestion that matched his rhetoric even if it were to lead to a direct confrontation with Russia and Iran. But he won't do that.
All he has is doing mimicking General Melchet.
'Doing precisely what we have done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they will expect us to do this time."
Two things that matter to Assad -
1) His air defence systems (missiles & radars) 2) His airforce.
destroy either of those and he will not be happy.
Assad's main air defence is provided by and manned by Russians. Irrespective of how good or bad the system actually is, you really think we should start targeting Russians directly?
1) You may note that even Trump was giving the Russians notice 2) Much of the Russian involvement is "mercenaries" - several hundred were kill by US airstrikes a couple of weeks back. Moscow barely turned a hair.
Their air defence system is not manned by mercenaries. It was extensively upgraded after the Turks shot down one of their aircraft. As I say I have no idea whether or not it is as good as some claim but the idea we could target it without killing Russians seems fanciful to me.
I think that’s spot on and another excellent post from you Richard. I’m surprised at the (half hearted) hawkishness from Josias, less so from Casino, who strikes me as a little bit of a toy soldier nerd. I’m not a pacifist, but the case for a strike simply isn’t there - it is hard to see what it will achieve.
I'm starting from the principle that the few weapons conventions we have - and which have mostly worked for decades - are worth protecting. Richard's position is that they're worthless.
If you take my position, the question comes as to what to do. I've expressed my view - that it should be seen that their use will offer you no advantage, and expressed some basic examples of how that may be achieved (and there are many more). Richard himself does a Melchett and poo-poos them.
Richard's position is IMO the nonsensical and more dangerous one. These treaties are valuable for the world and worth protecting (*). If we do not, we can kiss goodbye any other future weapons treaties covering other weapons, because countries will know that there will be no enforcement. In fact, his position makes the world a much more dangerous place in the long term.
Again, I stress there are no easy answers in this. But I honestly believe that we cannot let the use of chemical weapons be seen as acceptable - whether in Syria or, more worryingly in many ways, at home.
If you have rules, there has to be some form of punishment if they're broken. Otherwise you might as well not have the rules.
(*) And the west really screwed this up with Saddam in the 80s. But doing wrong then does not prevent us from doinf what is right now.
Pound rises over 1.15 euros today following sub par Eurozone Economic Statistics
Neither of those things are good for the UK economy.
Strange - when it fell post Brexit we were told it was really bad.
So which is it?
Not by me you weren't.
As the UK has had 241 consecutive months of trade deficit we do not need a higher value for sterling.
But there are few people who think that the UK should have a balanced economy and live within its means and many more who want cheaper imported consumer tat and cheaper foreign holidays.
I think that’s spot on and another excellent post from you Richard. I’m surprised at the (half hearted) hawkishness from Josias, less so from Casino, who strikes me as a little bit of a toy soldier nerd. I’m not a pacifist, but the case for a strike simply isn’t there - it is hard to see what it will achieve.
I'm starting from the principle that the few weapons conventions we have - and which have mostly worked for decades - are worth protecting. Richard's position is that they're worthless.
If you take my position, the question comes as to what to do. I've expressed my view - that it should be seen that their use will offer you no advantage, and expressed some basic examples of how that may be achieved (and there are many more). Richard himself does a Melchett and poo-poos them.
Richard's position is IMO the nonsensical and more dangerous one. These treaties are valuable for the world and worth protecting (*). If we do not, we can kiss goodbye any other future weapons treaties covering other weapons, because countries will know that there will be no enforcement. In fact, his position makes the world a much more dangerous place in the long term.
Again, I stress there are no easy answers in this. But I honestly believe that we cannot let the use of chemical weapons be seen as acceptable - whether in Syria or, more worryingly in many ways, at home.
If you have rules, there has to be some form of punishment if they're broken. Otherwise you might as well not have the rules.
(*) And the west really screwed this up with Saddam in the 80s. But doing wrong then does not prevent us from doinf what is right now.
Perfectly put. It's not about revenge, or bombing innocents, or getting aroused by large explosions. It's about morality and necessary repercussions for indefensible and - and I use the word quite deliberately - evil acts.
He sets out the pros and cons and then utterly fails to come up with a viable way to punish Assad. If he were to advocate a full scale escalation with Western troops invading Syria to remove Assad then he would at least have a suggestion that matched his rhetoric even if it were to lead to a direct confrontation with Russia and Iran. But he won't do that.
All he has is doing mimicking General Melchet.
'Doing precisely what we have done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they will expect us to do this time."
I think that’s spot on and another excellent post from you Richard. I’m surprised at the (half hearted) hawkishness from Josias, less so from Casino, who strikes me as a little bit of a toy soldier nerd. I’m not a pacifist, but the case for a strike simply isn’t there - it is hard to see what it will achieve.
If you don’t think the use of internationally banned chemical weapons, including chlorine and nerve agents, against women and children isn’t grounds for an international response, I’m not sure what is.
I’ve been astonished at the passivity, equivocation and dismissals on this on this site from erstwhile intelligent posters.
I think that’s spot on and another excellent post from you Richard. I’m surprised at the (half hearted) hawkishness from Josias, less so from Casino, who strikes me as a little bit of a toy soldier nerd. I’m not a pacifist, but the case for a strike simply isn’t there - it is hard to see what it will achieve.
I'm starting from the principle that the few weapons conventions we have - and which have mostly worked for decades - are worth protecting. Richard's position is that they're worthless.
If you take my position, the question comes as to what to do. I've expressed my view - that it should be seen that their use will offer you no advantage, and expressed some basic examples of how that may be achieved (and there are many more). Richard himself does a Melchett and poo-poos them.
Richard's position is IMO the nonsensical and more dangerous one. These treaties are valuable for the world and worth protecting (*). If we do not, we can kiss goodbye any other future weapons treaties covering other weapons, because countries will know that there will be no enforcement. In fact, his position makes the world a much more dangerous place in the long term.
Again, I stress there are no easy answers in this. But I honestly believe that we cannot let the use of chemical weapons be seen as acceptable - whether in Syria or, more worryingly in many ways, at home.
If you have rules, there has to be some form of punishment if they're broken. Otherwise you might as well not have the rules.
(*) And the west really screwed this up with Saddam in the 80s. But doing wrong then does not prevent us from doinf what is right now.
Resorting to hyperbole or reducto ad absurdium when one is making a reasoned argument is normally a sign that the individual isn’t confident they can rebutt your reasoned argument.
Comments
http://www.nudgefactory.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-London-Elections-PART-2.pdf
I think it may have been in the "Alternate Generals" collection. Another good story is "Tradition" by Elizabeth Moon - which if you draw some parallels from it, illuminates more recent events....
Those advert directors are a dodgy crowd:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43743759/corrie-star-on-being-asked-to-strip-for-ad-audition
Good job we don't allow that sort of riff-raff on here.
Or if you are using floor counting fuses - boom, boom, boom, BOOM!
The National Enquirer magazine paid Donald Trump's doorman $30,000 to prevent him publicly speaking about a rumour he fathered a love child, it has emerged.
https://twitter.com/RossPolitics/status/984416740842057734
This thread by Tom Fletcher puts it well:
https://mobile.twitter.com/TFletcher/status/984339403215659008
Don't know how they compare for commuting or travel in the suburbs.
I still adore that just because blindly believing anything we're told would indeed be silly, that proof (or usually 'PROOF') is demanded to insane degrees, and even when there is some, it never halts people saying 'there's no proof'.
Just take this little thread from the Salisbury local paper's story on a Russian tv crew being criticised by the hopsital. Note the great phrasing of 'do you have proof?' as if any random bozos would.
scarlet banner 7 hrs ago
is this a joke? the BBC and other media were in and out of SDH all day on friday last week waiting for Ms Skripal to be discharged,I know ,i was there and was interviewed by them,whats the difference? none.
Last Updated: 5 hrs ago
3
geoffp 5 hrs ago
Well they are state funded by the state that likely poisoned her, so there's that.
Last Updated: 2 hrs ago
3
Johnny Jarvis 5 hrs ago
geoffp wrote: Well they are state funded by the state that likely poisoned her, so there's that.
Do you have proof?
Last Updated: 3 hrs ago
1
geoffp 5 hrs ago
I said 'likely' try reading before commenting.
Last Updated: 2 hrs ago
1
Vernon Demerest 2 hrs ago
Do you have proof that they "likely" poisoned her?
http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/16152890.Health_chiefs_slam_Russian_TV_crew_for_sneaking_into_Salisbury_hospital/#comments-anchor
The Nazi's would have courtmartialled Dyer - for not doing a thorough job.
*In fact, this planned liberalisation was a good part of why he was targeted - making Serbians happy(er) to be in the AH Empire was not something the Black Hand wanted.
All he has is doing mimicking General Melchet.
'Doing precisely what we have done 18 times before is exactly the last thing they will expect us to do this time."
I see it expects the Tories to 'narrowly avoid their worst ever set of results in terms of councils controlled'. So we know if it is a really bad night the Tories will be clinging to that kind of line.
LDs losing ground across all London apart from SW London sounds bad, even knowing SW london is the focus of their strength.
Barnet predicted to go Lab I see.
1) His air defence systems (missiles & radars)
2) His airforce.
destroy either of those and he will not be happy.
So which is it?
Of course there is a difference between the reasons why the pound rises and falls and the effect of it doing so. It could be that from the point of view of a Pro-EU advocate the reasons for the pound falling last year was bad but the effect of that fall was good.
If the pound falls against the Euro because of Brexit it is bad for the UK economy.
If the pound rises against the Euro because of Brexit it is bad for the UK economy.
If the pound fell against the Euro because of Brexit didn't happen it would have been good for the UK economy.
If the pound rises against the Euro because of Brexit didn't happen it would have been good for the UK economy.
2) Much of the Russian involvement is "mercenaries" - several hundred were kill by US airstrikes a couple of weeks back. Moscow barely turned a hair.
Besides - they have been warned - last time they kept out of the way.
If action is taken it has to be to rid Assad of the ability to make and use chemical weapons. Nothing else and no regime change
If so, the moustache isn't important.
If you take my position, the question comes as to what to do. I've expressed my view - that it should be seen that their use will offer you no advantage, and expressed some basic examples of how that may be achieved (and there are many more). Richard himself does a Melchett and poo-poos them.
Richard's position is IMO the nonsensical and more dangerous one. These treaties are valuable for the world and worth protecting (*). If we do not, we can kiss goodbye any other future weapons treaties covering other weapons, because countries will know that there will be no enforcement. In fact, his position makes the world a much more dangerous place in the long term.
Again, I stress there are no easy answers in this. But I honestly believe that we cannot let the use of chemical weapons be seen as acceptable - whether in Syria or, more worryingly in many ways, at home.
If you have rules, there has to be some form of punishment if they're broken. Otherwise you might as well not have the rules.
(*) And the west really screwed this up with Saddam in the 80s. But doing wrong then does not prevent us from doinf what is right now.
As the UK has had 241 consecutive months of trade deficit we do not need a higher value for sterling.
But there are few people who think that the UK should have a balanced economy and live within its means and many more who want cheaper imported consumer tat and cheaper foreign holidays.
I’ve been astonished at the passivity, equivocation and dismissals on this on this site from erstwhile intelligent posters.