Mr. Observer, that disregards that MPs voted to endorse the referendum result, and refused multiple times to back May's deal. (And, of course, the electorate voted to leave).
Non-Conservative MPs had votes too, and the vast majority of them opposed the deal.
Whatever has happened up to now, the English nationalist hard right that controls the Tories own No Deal Brexit and its consequences 100%. They will be responsible for its consequences.
You know that, I know that, and they know that, but they’ll still try to argue that a big boy done it and ran away.
“A big boy did it an ran away” is the SNP manifesto Stuart.
I do understand your despair- trying to convince Scotland to vote to ditch the pound for the Euro will be an impossible task - especially with the backdrop of Salmond on trial for nefarious acts.
Did you read the poll that HYUFD posted at the start of the thread ? Johnson is electoral cyanide in Scotland.
The backdrop of a no deal Brexit under a Johnson government make another Indyref considerably more likely.
“Johnson, the likely new prime minister, has achieved the remarkable feat of being less popular in Scotland than Nigel Farage. One poll last month found that his premiership would result in an increase in the pro-independence vote to 53%, eight points higher than in 2014.”
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
It is sister paper to the SNP propaganda leaflet, so I'm not sure how 'Britnat' to expect it to be?
It has always been one of the most rabid unionist rags and every story printed was anti independence. Massive change especially given the state of the other unionist propaganda unit, The Scotsman, which is circling the drain.
Does anyone foresee any circumstances in which the 7 Sinn Fein MPs take their seats? Some of these outcomes have serious consequences for Ireland.
There are 7 constituenhose 7 votes could have been crucial in a number of votes over the last year or so.
Those constituencies wilfully elect people who openly tell them that they wont take up those seats in parliament. Therefore they are not disenfranchised against their will and they have republican alternatives if a plurality in those areas want both a United Ireland and to be represented in the UK parliament.
So I see nothing wrong with it as the voters there have made their choice knowing the consequences.
As for the anachronistic oath thing you can easily turn it around and say how silly it is that people wont just do it and cross their fingers or do it while making clear their thoughts on the nature on monarchy and the UK. Some pretty much do already.
Bottom line is though that they are clear on what they will do, voters back them, and they do it, so I am entirely unoutraged.
Doesn't really alter the fact that we should not be keeping anachronistic rules in place that prevent democratically elected MPs taking their seats unless they are prepared to forego their principles. It's 2019 for god's sake.
I don't agree in the slightest. It's a procedural issue easily overcome if they had any interest in taking up those seats, which they currently do not and their constituents back them in that stance. Your opinion on the procedure doesn't alter the fact that the consitutents know what they are doing, therfore whether the procedure is reasonable or not is irrelevant. SF have their principled stand, if their constituents wish to take a different stand they can - are the SDLP any less principled?
People often fall back on blaming procedure when the real issue is the choices people are making, and it is usually absolutely weaksauce - when you close one procedural issue, people find another to moan about because the procedure was the device by which they complain, not the source of their aggrievement. It's the case with a lot of complaints about anachronistic proceses.
There are easy ways for those constituencies to have an MP who takes up their seat, and that MP does not have to be unprincipled to do so even if they also back irish unification. Even the procedure as it exists does not prevent them from being principled but complying with a procedure as any british republican could tell us.
They don't want to do that, and that's totally their choice and I respect their choice as backed by their constituents.
Even now 8 years after the law change we still have submissions like "Boris will call an election". It is not in his control.
I know. There is a Telegraph article from last night regarding an autumn election that states there needs to be 17 working days between calling a general election and it being held. It took me an hour of searching to confirm that it needed the 25 working days I thought it did
Mr. Observer, that disregards that MPs voted to endorse the referendum result, and refused multiple times to back May's deal. (And, of course, the electorate voted to leave).
Non-Conservative MPs had votes too, and the vast majority of them opposed the deal.
Whatever has happened up to now, the English nationalist hard right that controls the Tories own No Deal Brexit and its consequences 100%. They will be responsible for its consequences.
You know that, I know that, and they know that, but they’ll still try to argue that a big boy done it and ran away.
“A big boy did it an ran away” is the SNP manifesto Stuart.
I do understand your despair- trying to convince Scotland to vote to ditch the pound for the Euro will be an impossible task - especially with the backdrop of Salmond on trial for nefarious acts.
Did you read the poll that HYUFD posted at the start of the thread ? Johnson is electoral cyanide in Scotland.
The backdrop of a no deal Brexit under a Johnson government make another Indyref considerably more likely. Salmond is irrelevant to that.
It is true to say that a small majority of Scottish Remainers now back Yes to independence as a result of the Brexit vote, 51% according to Curtice.
Note too that the Brexit Party were second in Scotland in the European Parliament elections and Boris will get many of those voters back voting for the Scottish Tories
Excellent article David and I do think it is likely we will coast to a no deal and it does look like the EU are planning to mitigate any issues as per reports from the EU last night.
Reading last nights thread I have to express real concern that HYUFD has lost all his previous sense and has become a blinkered Boris acolyte which is unfortunate as he did provide a sensible conservative viewpoint until the last few weeks
And his comments on the Straits of Hormuz were so ignorant of the geography and maritime shipping movements that I just buried my head in my hands in utter despair
If and when you read this HYUFD, can we have the old HYUFD back
Your memory is better than mine.
His comments on the SOH and Iran were so ridiculous it was plain embarrassing
He did vote remain and for a long time we took a similar view that TM deal was reasonable and that the WDA should have been passed. That remains my view but he has sadly morphed into an extreme brexiteer blinded by IDS and Boris
The aim is the Withdrawal Agreement minus backstop which as the Brady amendment showed has a majority in the Commons. Merkel seemed to be moving towards that yesterday and resolving the Irish border with a technical solution in the PD and future Declaration.
Then move towards a Canada style FTA with the EU otherwise No Deal until then
Once again - No technical solution exists - let alone one that could be implemented by October 31st... As I stated yesterday you can replace the word technology with magic or fairy dust...
Even now 8 years after the law change we still have submissions like "Boris will call an election". It is not in his control.
I give people the benefit of the doubt that it is usually just shorthand for 'He will call for an election, and obviously the opposition will say yes so there will be the votes to have one'
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
We’ll leave without a deal on 31st October. From here, it’s important that the Brexit loons own every bit of what happens. Hard right English nationalism is a disease that can only be defeated by exposure to reality. It needs to be humiliated before it is eviscerated. Its consequences have to be fully worked through. That will mean a lot of pain for a lot of people, but that is the choice the former Conservative and Unionist Party has made.
Whilst we also lob a few cruise missiles at Iran to keep trump happy according to our resident Tory expert
The SoH is too shallow for Astute ops and the T45s didn't get strike length VLS launchers to save money so TLAM strikes aren't an option unless we ask the US to do them for us.
I bow to your superior knowledge our resident Tory experts military knowledge is as good as his geography.
I am sure Saudi Arabia would happily host some RAF fighter jets to launch bombing missiles on Iran if need be
Excellent article David and I do think it is likely we will coast to a no deal and it does look like the EU are planning to mitigate any issues as per reports from the EU last night.
Reading last nights thread I have to express real concern that HYUFD has lost all his previous sense and has become a blinkered Boris acolyte which is unfortunate as he did provide a sensible conservative viewpoint until the last few weeks
And his comments on the Straits of Hormuz were so ignorant of the geography and maritime shipping movements that I just buried my head in my hands in utter despair
If and when you read this HYUFD, can we have the old HYUFD back
Your memory is better than mine.
His comments on the SOH and Iran were so ridiculous it was plain embarrassing
He did vote remain and for a long time we took a similar view that TM deal was reasonable and that the WDA should have been passed. That remains my view but he has sadly morphed into an extreme brexiteer blinded by IDS and Boris
The aim is the Withdrawal Agreement minus backstop which as the Brady amendment showed has a majority in the Commons. Merkel seemed to be moving towards that yesterday and resolving the Irish border with a technical solution in the PD and future Declaration.
Then move towards a Canada style FTA with the EU otherwise No Deal until then
Once again - No technical solution exists - let alone one that could be implemented by October 31st... As I stated yesterday you can replace the word technology with magic or fairy dust...
To be fair under HYUFD’s latest formulation (what happened to ditch the Customs Union but stuff the DUP with the alternative NI only backstop?), the “technical solution” wouldn’t actually be required until the end of the transition period.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Excellent article David and I do think it is likely we will coast to a no deal and it does look like the EU are planning to mitigate any issues as per reports from the EU last night.
Reading last nights thread I have to express real concern that HYUFD has lost all his previous sense and has become a blinkered Boris acolyte which is unfortunate as he did provide a sensible conservative viewpoint until the last few weeks
And his comments on the Straits of Hormuz were so ignorant of the geography and maritime shipping movements that I just buried my head in my hands in utter despair
If and when you read this HYUFD, can we have the old HYUFD back
Your memory is better than mine.
His comments on the SOH and Iran were so ridiculous it was plain embarrassing
He did vote remain and for a long time we took a similar view that TM deal was reasonable and that the WDA should have been passed. That remains my view but he has sadly morphed into an extreme brexiteer blinded by IDS and Boris
The aim is the Withdrawal Agreement minus backstop which as the Brady amendment showed has a majority in the Commons. Merkel seemed to be moving towards that yesterday and resolving the Irish border with a technical solution in the PD and future Declaration.
Then move towards a Canada style FTA with the EU otherwise No Deal until then
Once again - No technical solution exists - let alone one that could be implemented by October 31st... As I stated yesterday you can replace the word technology with magic or fairy dust...
To be fair under HYUFD’s latest formulation (what happened to ditch the Customs Union but stuff the DUP with the alternative NI only backstop?), the “technical solution” wouldn’t actually be required until the end of the transition period.
The great thing about being so certain about so many different scenarios is one of them being right in the end. I employ the tactic myself.
If this latest solution works it would be damn irritating the EU did not agree to it sooner.
Slightly off topic, but not totally irrelevant. Is anyone running a book on how many votes will be cast in the Tory leadership election? I've just looked it up and it was around 200,000 in 2005. So I'd say it would be embarrassing if it were under 100,000 this time.
"Brussels is preparing to offer Boris Johnson a no-deal Brexit extension beyond 31 October in an attempt to help him keep the Conservative party together and provide one more chance to strike an agreement deal." Yes indeed! The EU head honchos really care about the survivability of the Conservatives.
Slightly off topic, but not totally irrelevant. Is anyone running a book on how many votes will be cast in the Tory leadership election? I've just looked it up and it was around 200,000 in 2005. So I'd say it would be embarrassing if it were under 100,000 this time.
Interesting question. What was the turnout last time, as the membership is still over 100k, but unless there's really high turnout sub-100k is possible?
The chances of a No Deal exit are very low and it will only happen through accident and incompetence.
I'm feel like, intentionally, the beginning and end of that sentence contradict one another, given the high probability of incompetence therefore makes no deal exit chances rise.
"Brussels is preparing to offer Boris Johnson a no-deal Brexit extension beyond 31 October in an attempt to help him keep the Conservative party together and provide one more chance to strike an agreement deal." Yes indeed! The EU head honchos really care about the survivability of the Conservatives.
Of course not, but they care about the ability of the next PM to assemble a majority for a deal. However unlikely that might be.
"Brussels is preparing to offer Boris Johnson a no-deal Brexit extension beyond 31 October in an attempt to help him keep the Conservative party together and provide one more chance to strike an agreement deal." Yes indeed! The EU head honchos really care about the survivability of the Conservatives.
I would suggest it is more self interest than anything to do with the conservative party.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Good to know you and Bozo have it all thought through
Shit I just looked up to see planes taking off from an aircraft carrier on the tv and thought that’s escalated quickly to then discover they were reviewing top gun
I don't need to see a single frame to know it will be unbearably terrible. In the first one Viper says he flew F-4s off the Oriskany which never operated F-4s. For fuck's sake.
Quickstep stacked their team with sprinters to support Viviani so the only support Lulu will have in the high mountains will be Enrique Mas.
G the Human Chemistry Experiment has Bernal and Castroviejo to help him and an ex World Champ (Kwia) just to bring his bidons so I'd say the odds are still in his favour. Team Fracking probably can't afford any fuck ups or crashes though.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Surely if we’ve officially warned all our tankers not to travel in the SoH, and take the alternative route around the Cape of Good Hope, then we wouldn’t feel duty bound to start World War 3 on their behalf?
Even now 8 years after the law change we still have submissions like "Boris will call an election". It is not in his control.
I know. There is a Telegraph article from last night regarding an autumn election that states there needs to be 17 working days between calling a general election and it being held. It took me an hour of searching to confirm that it needed the 25 working days I thought it did
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We have little capability to do anything but stamp our feet, they have turned the armed forces into Dad's Army. As ever they need the American's to do anything relevant , all our "done on the cheap" boats are shown up to be useless apart from joy riding.
"Brussels is preparing to offer Boris Johnson a no-deal Brexit extension beyond 31 October in an attempt to help him keep the Conservative party together and provide one more chance to strike an agreement deal." Yes indeed! The EU head honchos really care about the survivability of the Conservatives.
What on earth is a no deal Brexit extension? A standstill extension on current terms but use wording to say we have left the EU? That would seem a plausible outcome from here.
It is sister paper to the SNP propaganda leaflet, so I'm not sure how 'Britnat' to expect it to be?
It has always been one of the most rabid unionist rags and every story printed was anti independence. Massive change especially given the state of the other unionist propaganda unit, The Scotsman, which is circling the drain.
I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Luckyguy actually lives in Scotland if he hasn't noticed that the Herald is and has been pro Union.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
A vote winner too in the short term at least, if one were to be outrageously cynical, and of courss in the minds of some it might enhance Boris' Churchillian credentials.
Hopefully tbose thoughts are too dark even for Mr Johnson to contemplate.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Both ignorant and mad. Just what do you think would be achieved by air strikes, in the extraordinarily unlikely event of any Gulf ally allowing their launch ?
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
The chairman of the High Speed 2 rail project has reportedly warned that its cost could rise by £30bn.
HS2 chairman Allan Cook has written to the Department for Transport to say the high-speed line cannot be delivered within its £56bn budget, according to the Financial Times.
"Brussels is preparing to offer Boris Johnson a no-deal Brexit extension beyond 31 October in an attempt to help him keep the Conservative party together and provide one more chance to strike an agreement deal." Yes indeed! The EU head honchos really care about the survivability of the Conservatives.
I would suggest it is more self interest than anything to do with the conservative party.
Indeed this may be the actual outcome
Perhaps. This was one of the main items of the early morning news here in Finland, including the idea that it helps the Conservatives, so I don't think that notion comes just from the Guardian's reporter Daniel Boffey. That said, it is remarkable how the broadcast news outlets here parrot material from The Guardian.
I am sure Saudi Arabia would happily host some RAF fighter jets to launch bombing missiles on Iran if need be
British forces have ZERO offensive electronic warfare or suppression of enemy air defence capabilities (to save money for the Red Arrows and other essentials). We are not attacking Iran or anyone else without very considerable involvement from the US. Our response will be whatever Trump says it is.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
An Iranian vessel transporting oil to the Assad regime in breach even of EU sanctions.
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Do you think they would have taken the tanker if we hadn’t seized one of theirs on orders from the US? The most sensible thing I have heard said about this is that it’s a game of tit for tat, where the Iranians only play the tat part, and leave the tits to trump. So are we dancing to Trumps tune or are we not?
It is sister paper to the SNP propaganda leaflet, so I'm not sure how 'Britnat' to expect it to be?
It has always been one of the most rabid unionist rags and every story printed was anti independence. Massive change especially given the state of the other unionist propaganda unit, The Scotsman, which is circling the drain.
I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Luckyguy actually lives in Scotland if he hasn't noticed that the Herald is and has been pro Union.
Maybe sticks to The Scotsman and so never noticed.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
An Iranian vessel transporting oil to the Assad regime in breach even of EU sanctions.
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
I thought you had denied me the opportunity of being a diehard remainer as I support the WA?
I am merely pointing out that if everyone jumps to military action at the first sign of troubles we will have a lot more wars than we do and that might not be great for the people involved.
At a time like this what we really need are strong diplomats, able to speak freely and with clarity and support from their governments.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
A vote winner too in the short term at least, if one were to be outrageously cynical, and of courss in the minds of some it might enhance Boris' Churchillian credentials.
Hopefully tbose thoughts are too dark even for Mr Johnson to contemplate.
Not a vote winner I suspect. The public have had enough of foreign interventions.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
They have the choice of not breaking sanctions.
Trump broke that deal first. Should the UK police that side of the deal too?
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
Even now 8 years after the law change we still have submissions like "Boris will call an election". It is not in his control.
I know. There is a Telegraph article from last night regarding an autumn election that states there needs to be 17 working days between calling a general election and it being held. It took me an hour of searching to confirm that it needed the 25 working days I thought it did
Could have done it in ten minutes via Wikipedia
I wanted the actual facts from the actual bill and that has hard reading after a couple of drinks..
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
An Iranian vessel transporting oil to the Assad regime in breach even of EU sanctions.
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
Iran isn't subject to EU law.
It's a shame you weren't elected last year; you could have swung Epping Parish behind the drive to war.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
They have the choice of not breaking sanctions.
Meanwhile we've dropped 2,400 Paveway IVs (£70k each) on Syria acting as Assad's air force against ISIS in exercising our other and contradictory policy on Syria.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Both ignorant and mad. Just what do you think would be achieved by air strikes, in the extraordinarily unlikely event of any Gulf ally allowing their launch ?
“Ignorant and mad” - the Tory Party’s new mission statement.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
An Iranian vessel transporting oil to the Assad regime in breach even of EU sanctions.
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
I thought you had denied me the opportunity of being a diehard remainer as I support the WA?
I am merely pointing out that if everyone jumps to military action at the first sign of troubles we will have a lot more wars than we do and that might not be great for the people involved.
At a time like this what we really need are strong diplomats, able to speak freely and with clarity and support from their governments.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
How many do you think we have and why would we fire them all at Iran?
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
An Iranian vessel transporting oil to the Assad regime in breach even of EU sanctions.
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
Iran isn't subject to EU law...
Correct, and there are (rightly or wrongly) no UN sanctions on Syria, thanks to the Russians and Chinese.
Johnson is either serious about No Deal or he isn't.
If he is, there will be a VONC, which will succeed because the Gawkward squad have the balls to bring down the govt and force a Brexit election.
If he isn't - i.e. if he agrees an extension to negotiate - there will NOT be a VONC. The reason there won't be is that the numbers will not be there. And the reason the numbers will not be there is that, unlike the Gawkwards, the ERG nutjobs do NOT have the balls to bring down the govt and force a Brexit election. They may make a song & dance about Johnson's 'betrayal' - probably will - but that will be all it is. Noise.
Conclusion?
Since there is no doubt in my mind that Johnson is NOT serious about No Deal, it is the 2nd of the above scenarios that will play out. We get neither a Brexit nor a General Election in 2019. This thing rolls into 2020 and very possibly beyond. Boris Johnson, having made it to PM, does whatever it takes to hang in there.
Recommended positioning betwise for this -
Lay 2019 No Deal Brexit. Lay 2019 Brexit date. Lay 2019 VONC. Back Brexit date 1st half 2020. Back GE in 2020.
With a saver/hedge, backing a 'WA' being ratified in 2019. Just in case Boris surprises on the upside and manages to finesse something through this year.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
An Iranian vessel transporting oil to the Assad regime in breach even of EU sanctions.
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
Iran isn't subject to EU law...
Correct, and there are (rightly or wrongly) no UN sanctions on Syria, thanks to the Russians and Chinese.
However we are subject to EU law and we do help enforce it.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
The UK launching first strike attacks on Iran is beyond madness.
If matters cannot be resolved through diplomacy then the US EU UK and others must come together to protect ships passing through the SOH and refer the issue to the UN security council
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
How many do you think we have and why would we fire them all at Iran?
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
Perhaps we should stop meddling in the Middle East.
Johnson is either serious about No Deal or he isn't.
If he is, there will be a VONC, which will succeed because the Gawkward squad have the balls to bring down the govt and force a Brexit election.
If he isn't - i.e. if he agrees an extension to negotiate - there will NOT be a VONC. The reason there won't be is that the numbers will not be there. And the reason the numbers will not be there is that, unlike the Gawkwards, the ERG nutjobs do NOT have the balls to bring down the govt and force a Brexit election. They may make a song & dance about Johnson's 'betrayal' - probably will - but that will be all it is. Noise.
Conclusion?
Since there is no doubt in my mind that Johnson is NOT serious about No Deal, it is the 2nd of the above scenarios that will play out. We get neither a Brexit nor a General Election in 2019. This thing rolls into 2020 and very possibly beyond. Boris Johnson, having made it to PM, does whatever it takes to hang in there.
Recommended positioning betwise for this -
Lay 2019 No Deal Brexit. Lay 2019 Brexit date. Lay 2019 VONC. Back Brexit date 1st half 2020. Back GE in 2020.
With a saver/hedge, backing a 'WA' being ratified in 2019. Just in case Boris surprises on the upside and manages to finesse something through this year.
Laying both a 2019 and 2022 GE looks like a good position to me, with slightly more £ on the latter as insurance
Johnson is either serious about No Deal or he isn't.
If he is, there will be a VONC, which will succeed because the Gawkward squad have the balls to bring down the govt and force a Brexit election.
If he isn't - i.e. if he agrees an extension to negotiate - there will NOT be a VONC. The reason there won't be is that the numbers will not be there. And the reason the numbers will not be there is that, unlike the Gawkwards, the ERG nutjobs do NOT have the balls to bring down the govt and force a Brexit election. They may make a song & dance about Johnson's 'betrayal' - probably will - but that will be all it is. Noise.
Conclusion?
Since there is no doubt in my mind that Johnson is NOT serious about No Deal, it is the 2nd of the above scenarios that will play out. We get neither a Brexit nor a General Election in 2019. This thing rolls into 2020 and very possibly beyond. Boris Johnson, having made it to PM, does whatever it takes to hang in there.
Recommended positioning betwise for this -
Lay 2019 No Deal Brexit. Lay 2019 Brexit date. Lay 2019 VONC. Back Brexit date 1st half 2020. Back GE in 2020.
With a saver/hedge, backing a 'WA' being ratified in 2019. Just in case Boris surprises on the upside and manages to finesse something through this year.
If Boris does this then from just days into his premiership he will be in office but not in power. Also what is going to change between Oct 19 and H1 2020?
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
An Iranian vessel transporting oil to the Assad regime in breach even of EU sanctions.
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
Iran isn't subject to EU law...
Correct, and there are (rightly or wrongly) no UN sanctions on Syria, thanks to the Russians and Chinese.
However we are subject to EU law and we do help enforce it.
Except that the justification of the tanker seizure has been questioned by some in the EU, too. If is at the very least questionable, and unusual. And probably litigable in a similar manner to the Iranian seizure of our tankers.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Both ignorant and mad. Just what do you think would be achieved by air strikes, in the extraordinarily unlikely event of any Gulf ally allowing their launch ?
“Ignorant and mad” - the Tory Party’s new mission statement.
I’m far from convinced that Boris realises just what he’s put himself in charge of.
It’s impressive how support for nodeal has become so mainstream that it is not a firm enough demonstration of red blooded conviction, and it is felt that starting a unilateral war with Iran is the only way one can show sufficient differentiation.
Wonder why we didn’t start a war with Russia over Novichok, personally?
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Both ignorant and mad. Just what do you think would be achieved by air strikes, in the extraordinarily unlikely event of any Gulf ally allowing their launch ?
“Ignorant and mad” - the Tory Party’s new mission statement.
I’m far from convinced that Boris realises just what he’s put himself in charge of.
Catch 22 for him. Had the party been sane and sensible, no PM's hat for Bozo.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Both ignorant and mad. Just what do you think would be achieved by air strikes, in the extraordinarily unlikely event of any Gulf ally allowing their launch ?
“Ignorant and mad” - the Tory Party’s new mission statement.
I’m far from convinced that Boris realises just what he’s put himself in charge of.
Remember this photo the day after Boris won the referendum
I expect to see something very similar late on Thursday afternoon after the truth is revealed step by step in simple sentences he can follow
Johnson is either serious about No Deal or he isn't.
If he is, there will be a VONC, which will succeed because the Gawkward squad have the balls to bring down the govt and force a Brexit election.
If he isn't - i.e. if he agrees an extension to negotiate - there will NOT be a VONC. The reason there won't be is that the numbers will not be there. And the reason the numbers will not be there is that, unlike the Gawkwards, the ERG nutjobs do NOT have the balls to bring down the govt and force a Brexit election. They may make a song & dance about Johnson's 'betrayal' - probably will - but that will be all it is. Noise.
Conclusion?
Since there is no doubt in my mind that Johnson is NOT serious about No Deal, it is the 2nd of the above scenarios that will play out. We get neither a Brexit nor a General Election in 2019. This thing rolls into 2020 and very possibly beyond. Boris Johnson, having made it to PM, does whatever it takes to hang in there.
Recommended positioning betwise for this -
Lay 2019 No Deal Brexit. Lay 2019 Brexit date. Lay 2019 VONC. Back Brexit date 1st half 2020. Back GE in 2020.
With a saver/hedge, backing a 'WA' being ratified in 2019. Just in case Boris surprises on the upside and manages to finesse something through this year.
Assuming the LD’s win on Thursday the government majority will be down to 3. It will only take a couple more arrests/defections/actuarial events for it to be wiped out completely. There has to be a chance of a VONC occurring soon due to simple parliamentary arithmetic, regardless of the state of Brexit.
Trump can get away with repeatedly saying and doing stupid things in Foreign affairs because ultimately nobody wants to mess with America. Johnson will not have the same safety net.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
How many do you think we have and why would we fire them all at Iran?
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
Perhaps we should stop meddling in the Middle East.
Perhaps we should.
It is quite similar to the War on Drugs. Doing it halfheartedly achieves nothing. For drugs we either we need to go much harder (like Singapore) or stop altogether and legalise it.
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
The UK launching first strike attacks on Iran is beyond madness.
If matters cannot be resolved through diplomacy then the US EU UK and others must come together to protect ships passing through the SOH and refer the issue to the UN security council
I never said we should launch first strike attacks. If it keeps escalating the RAF should be prepared to launch strikes but I expect it would be in conjunction with the USA and others. But we should do everything possible to avoid that while simultaneously preparing for that just in case.
Its exactly like no deal. We don't want it, but we must prepare for it.
Same Latin expression applies to both. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Trump can get away with repeatedly saying and doing stupid things in Foreign affairs because ultimately nobody wants to mess with America. Johnson will not have the same safety net.
It depends if he's on the same side as the USA or not
I don't buy the premise of this article; nothing has changed with Boris. None of the fundamentals are about who the PM is. The Brecon by-election is more important in Brexit outcome terms than the Tory leadership contest.
Same dilemma as in March, same contradictions in policy that we want to magic away, same refusal to face up to our choices (honourable mention for Rory Stewart) Same lack of majority in parliament or country for any final option. I reckon it's heading to a further extension. The October date was always a strange compromise - not long enough for anything important to really happen and no EU institutions around to negotiate with anyway.
Assuming the LD’s win on Thursday the government majority will be down to 3. It will only take a couple more arrests/defections/actuarial events for it to be wiped out completely. There has to be a chance of a VONC occurring soon due to simple parliamentary arithmetic, regardless of the state of Brexit.
I think the chances of a Con hold in Brecon are better than the market 10.0 but, yes, very much take your point. It must be more likely than not that there is a VONC at some point this year. However I was happy to lay it at 1.2 (couple of weeks back) on the grounds of the chances are not IMO as high as that. It's 1.27 now and this is still, for me, overstating its probability.
I hope I am wrong on all this, btw. I do so want that election!
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
Well fine, otherwise if the Iranians keep capturing oil tankers flying UK flags military strikes would be inevitable unless the left as usual wants to be walked all over which would not happy under PM Boris
Despite all the rhetoric, I think the US might have a few words before the UK attempts to start a war in the Gulf. Trump is quite happy talking belligerently as long as he is the one with the finger on the button. He doesn’t want Johnson starting a war mistakenly under the impression he has his full support.
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
We could certainly launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia or a Gulf State ally even if submarine strikes proved more difficult (and that would apply to US subs as much as UK).
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
Do the Iranians have any choice but military action when we insist on capturing Iranian vessels?
An Iranian vessel transporting oil to the Assad regime in breach even of EU sanctions.
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
Iran isn't subject to EU law.
It's a shame you weren't elected last year; you could have swung Epping Parish behind the drive to war.
That was the point the Iranian spokesman made very articulately this morning. If he is correct that the seizing of the ship was at Trumps request then we are clearly hitching our wagon to a very unstable and incontinent horse. The Iranians are nothing like the Iraquis. They are made of much sterner stuff which is why the Israelis fear them so much.
Trump can get away with repeatedly saying and doing stupid things in Foreign affairs because ultimately nobody wants to mess with America. Johnson will not have the same safety net.
It depends if he's on the same side as the USA or not
You think we can be the tail that wags the dog?
Mikheil Saakashvili thought the USA had his back, but he ended up chewing his tie as Russian tanks poured across the border.
Laying both a 2019 and 2022 GE looks like a good position to me, with slightly more £ on the latter as insurance
Yes, although I see BoJo clinging on beyond this year it is difficult to see him getting all the way to the end of this parliament. If he succeeds in getting a Brexit deal through, he will want to cash in at the polls. And if he fails, patience will run out before 2022.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
How many do you think we have and why would we fire them all at Iran?
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
Perhaps we should stop meddling in the Middle East.
Enforcing international law on the free passage of trading vessels is not meddling in the.Middle East, though doubtless one aspect of the current crisis is the destabilising effect of our past meddling.
Trump can get away with repeatedly saying and doing stupid things in Foreign affairs because ultimately nobody wants to mess with America. Johnson will not have the same safety net.
It depends if he's on the same side as the USA or not
You think we can be the tail that wags the dog?
Mikheil Saakashvili thought the USA had his back, but he ended up chewing his tie as Russian tanks poured across the border.
No I think we can be the tail to the USAs dog. If war occurs and I repeat I don't want it then it won't be unilateral.
If Boris does this then from just days into his premiership he will be in office but not in power. Also what is going to change between Oct 19 and H1 2020?
Well, he will face what May faced. I think he will fancy a crack at solving what she could not and finding out whether he can or he can't will take us into 2020.
I don't buy the premise of this article; nothing has changed with Boris. None of the fundamentals are about who the PM is. The Brecon by-election is more important in Brexit outcome terms than the Tory leadership contest.
Same dilemma as in March, same contradictions in policy that we want to magic away, same refusal to face up to our choices (honourable mention for Rory Stewart) Same lack of majority in parliament or country for any final option. I reckon it's heading to a further extension. The October date was always a strange compromise - not long enough for anything important to really happen and no EU institutions around to negotiate with anyway.
It is only heading for a further extension if Boris wants one (assuming he becomes PM). As with all the other unicorn options, Parliament cannot force the Executive to extend if they choose not to.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
How many do you think we have and why would we fire them all at Iran?
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
Perhaps we should stop meddling in the Middle East.
Enforcing international law on the free passage of trading vessels is not meddling in the.Middle East, though doubtless one aspect of the current crisis is the destabilising effect of our past meddling.
Indeed this vessel was in international waters. If our vessels aren't safe in international waters and we don't act then what else should we do?
If Boris does this then from just days into his premiership he will be in office but not in power. Also what is going to change between Oct 19 and H1 2020?
Well, he will face what May faced. I think he will fancy a crack at solving what she could not and finding out whether he can or he can't will take us into 2020.
Indeed he will and May failed by trying to keep everyone happy and refusing to act.
It Boris chooses to be May 2.0 he deserves to fail.
It is sister paper to the SNP propaganda leaflet, so I'm not sure how 'Britnat' to expect it to be?
It has always been one of the most rabid unionist rags and every story printed was anti independence. Massive change especially given the state of the other unionist propaganda unit, The Scotsman, which is circling the drain.
I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Luckyguy actually lives in Scotland if he hasn't noticed that the Herald is and has been pro Union.
Maybe sticks to The Scotsman and so never noticed.
I don't read a paper. The Herald group got in by touch recently with a request that my company should advertise in their titles.
If there is a successful VONC under the terms of the FTPA then Corbyn DOES NOT become PM. We wait for a fortnight and if the VONC is not rescinded there is a general election at which Boris would go into as PM.
Corbyn only becomes PM if LAB is in a position after the election to form a government
Thank you Mike for the clarification. I'm not quite sure what David was thinking when he wrote that but he was wrong. As you state, a successful VONC does NOT put Corbyn into No.10 so it's completely wrong to suggest that Cons MPs voting for it are voting for Corbyn as PM. This is a non sequitur. Hopefully anyone reading the piece will realise the error.
It's also not the case that there's insufficient time for an Election before Brexit day. One could be called next week or early September. I'm not suggesting it will be, simply that there would be time.
Finally, the reason that commentators were so interested (excited) this week is because the vote 1) shut off a possible Boris route to No Deal and 2) sent a clear message of intent: a shot across the Johnson bow.
I usually admire David Herdson's pieces. This isn't his strongest. But then, to be fair, these are febrile times. The sands shift daily and navigating a path across them is for soothsayers as much as geographers.
David's point surely is though that a VNOC in itself would not stop No Deal. That requires a PM willing to ask for an Extension - which is why it would become necessary to install Corbyn having passed the VNOC.
If there is a successful VONC under the terms of the FTPA then Corbyn DOES NOT become PM. We wait for a fortnight and if the VONC is not rescinded there is a general election at which Boris would go into as PM.
Corbyn only becomes PM if LAB is in a position after the election to form a government
Thank you Mike for the clarification. I'm not quite sure what David was thinking when he wrote that but he was wrong. As you state, a successful VONC does NOT put Corbyn into No.10 so it's completely wrong to suggest that Cons MPs voting for it are voting for Corbyn as PM. This is a non sequitur. Hopefully anyone reading the piece will realise the error.
It's also not the case that there's insufficient time for an Election before Brexit day. One could be called next week or early September. I'm not suggesting it will be, simply that there would be time.
Finally, the reason that commentators were so interested (excited) this week is because the vote 1) shut off a possible Boris route to No Deal and 2) sent a clear message of intent: a shot across the Johnson bow.
I usually admire David Herdson's pieces. This isn't his strongest. But then, to be fair, these are febrile times. The sands shift daily and navigating a path across them is for soothsayers as much as geographers.
David's point surely is though that a VNOC in itself would not stop No Deal. That requires a PM willing to ask for an Extension - which is why it would become necessary to install Corbyn having passed the VNOC.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
How many do you think we have and why would we fire them all at Iran?
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
Perhaps we should stop meddling in the Middle East.
Enforcing international law on the free passage of trading vessels is not meddling in the.Middle East, though doubtless one aspect of the current crisis is the destabilising effect of our past meddling.
Do you think the seizure of the Iranian tanker might have influenced Iran's actions ?
I hope Boris cancels HS2 ,with the current costs escalating. Also he keeps to his promise of not going ahead with runway 3 at Heathrow, on environmental grounds. His premiership will have then got of to a good start, with many voters.
Why do people think that Corbyn would go for an extension if he were able to do so?
The biggest set of votes up for grabs at the next election is floating remain voters. It is probably about 20% of the electorate looking at the drop in Labour from GE17 to current polling plus Tory remainers looking for a new home. Their vote is very fluid at the moment. If Corbyn brings us no deal, Labour miss out on most of those votes. If they make it a condition of a GE then they may get most of those votes as they did in GE17.
I think those voters are now lost to Labour, Mr Above. And the Labour Party itself is now a lost cause, as everybody can see.
HYUFD - you've given me a bloody good laugh on the previous thread.
Geography isn't exactly your strong point is it?
Anyhow, in anticipation of things kicking off in the Straits of Hormuz, the Emiratis have built a fecking huge oil terminal in Fujairah, with the oil moving there by pipeline. Clever folk.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
How many do you think we have and why would we fire them all at Iran?
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
Perhaps we should stop meddling in the Middle East.
Enforcing international law on the free passage of trading vessels is not meddling in the.Middle East, though doubtless one aspect of the current crisis is the destabilising effect of our past meddling.
Do you think the seizure of the Iranian tanker might have influenced Iran's actions ?
If seizing the Iranian tanker was necessary to enforce sanctions on Syria then we should stand firm and not give in to unlawful retaliatory action. If it was a mistake then we should release it, regardless of what Iran does.
Iran may link the two but I don't see why we, as a country that claims to uphold a rules-based order, should accept that linking.
If there is a successful VONC under the terms of the FTPA then Corbyn DOES NOT become PM. We wait for a fortnight and if the VONC is not rescinded there is a general election at which Boris would go into as PM.
Corbyn only becomes PM if LAB is in a position after the election to form a government
Thank you Mike for the clarification. I'm not quite sure what David was thinking when he wrote that but he was wrong. As you state, a successful VONC does NOT put Corbyn into No.10 so it's completely wrong to suggest that Cons MPs voting for it are voting for Corbyn as PM. This is a non sequitur. Hopefully anyone reading the piece will realise the error.
It's also not the case that there's insufficient time for an Election before Brexit day. One could be called next week or early September. I'm not suggesting it will be, simply that there would be time.
Finally, the reason that commentators were so interested (excited) this week is because the vote 1) shut off a possible Boris route to No Deal and 2) sent a clear message of intent: a shot across the Johnson bow.
I usually admire David Herdson's pieces. This isn't his strongest. But then, to be fair, these are febrile times. The sands shift daily and navigating a path across them is for soothsayers as much as geographers.
David's point surely is though that a VNOC in itself would not stop No Deal. That requires a PM willing to ask for an Extension - which is why it would become necessary to install Corbyn having passed the VNOC.
Exactly!
Yes, but that doesn't quite take you all the way.
Corbyn might prefer not to take over in these circumstances. It would mean he would own Brexit (or no-Brexit, as the case may be), so he may prefer to step aside for somebody else - a temporary leader perhaps, appointed to call a GE.
Not saying I know the answer, but isn't that a plausible scenario.
If there is a successful VONC under the terms of the FTPA then Corbyn DOES NOT become PM. We wait for a fortnight and if the VONC is not rescinded there is a general election at which Boris would go into as PM.
Corbyn only becomes PM if LAB is in a position after the election to form a government
No, I don't think that's right.
The FTPA clearly implies that if a government is no-confidenced, then others have the right to try to form a government. A sitting PM who had been rejected by the Commons couldn't just bed-block all alternatives.
In our specific example, Corbyn would undoubtedly claim the right to try to form a government, and would have precedent on his side, as well as the mechanics of the FTPA. In 1924, 1974 and indeed 2010, minority governments were appointed without having to prove the Commons' confidence first.
I suspect that the Palace might want an assurance that Corbyn could form a government, and paving or indicative votes could be used prior to an actual appointment and FTPA-compliant motion of confidence but if the House did indicate a majority prepared to accept Corbyn then Boris's position would be untenable and if he didn't resign then he would be dismissed, just as a PM who refused to resign after losing an election would be.
The question here is why would not just all (or very nearly all) Labour MPs but SNP, Lib Dems, independents and a few rebel Tories back a useless Marxist? To which the answer is that there's no-one else available to achieve the end of blocking No Deal. It's inconceivable that Corbyn would allow Labour to back either an MP from another party or a different MP from his own: that's the privilege of being by far the largest party in the coalition.
Such a Corbyn government might well have only a limited life-span: long enough to gain a further A50 extension in order to open up new Brexit opportunities and then to go back to the country in an inevitable general election but it would serve its purpose.
I hope Boris cancels HS2 ,with the current costs escalating. Also he keeps to his promise of not going ahead with runway 3 at Heathrow, on environmental grounds. His premiership will have then got of to a good start, with many voters.
Cancelling HR3 and increasing airport tax would be the things to do on environmental grounds.
I’m in a minority of one among all the insiders and colleagues whom I’ve consulted on this, but I think that, before early October, there’s a chance Johnson might of his own volition call a general election. There are strong arguments against: best to leave the EU first and kill the Brexit Party; there is a huge risk of a civil war within the Conservative Party over the manifesto promise on Brexit; a rash of deselections . . . all real, all a nightmare, I concede. But behind all these objections lies the assumption that Johnson has a choice. If, though, he fears a lost confidence vote is coming anyway then better, surely, to go on to the front foot. “I want your mandate” would be the call. However short, the post-coronation honeymoon might be long enough for one bold act, and would be the best time to risk it.
We had this response y'day and I've no idea why you think it's valid. If Boris Johnson goes to Parliament there isn't the faintest chance he won't get the 2/3rds majority. He would get nearly 100% support for a GE. Which would mean no 5yr fixed term: we go to a GE.
So what's your point?
Will Boris actually do it? He probably should but I doubt it. He's too wrapped in his own Churchillian cloak of destiny to see that it might be his best, and possibly only, route to Brexit. And having seen Theresa May stuff up in 2017, who can blame him really?
In April 2017 only 522 MPs voted for the early Dissolution requested by Theresa May. Whilst this comfortably exceeded the two thirds required, almost 20% of MPs failed to support it. Moreover, under the terms of the FTPA an election held this Autumn would only result in a Parliament of four and a half years - the following election would become due in the first week of May 2024.
HYUFD. Your comments on SOH and Iran last night were simply embarrassing and even now you are going all gung ho on war with Iran. The idea that we should even contemplate military strikes against Iran is madness and could trigger a middle east full on war with Saudi Israel US EU and ourselves on one side v a nuclear armed Iran and Russia on the other.
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I don't want war, but then I don't want attacks on our vessels either. War may not be avoidable if this keeps escalating.
Fact that we could not even manage a strike never mind a war does not come into your thinking then.
We have missiles.
And if we fire them all at Iran we won't have them any more. And we won't have won the war either.
How many do you think we have and why would we fire them all at Iran?
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
Perhaps we should stop meddling in the Middle East.
Enforcing international law on the free passage of trading vessels is not meddling in the.Middle East, though doubtless one aspect of the current crisis is the destabilising effect of our past meddling.
Do you think the seizure of the Iranian tanker might have influenced Iran's actions ?
If seizing the Iranian tanker was necessary to enforce sanctions on Syria then we should stand firm and not give in to unlawful retaliatory action. If it was a mistake then we should release it, regardless of what Iran does.
Iran may link the two but I don't see why we, as a country that claims to uphold a rules-based order, should accept that linking.
Don't the sanctions from Syria date from the time when we were trying to overthrow Assad ?
As Dura points out they don't seem to be coherent with our current strategy.
Thanks None. I was beginning to think I was the only one to be getting a little confused here.
Thank you too David for a truly excellent piece, even if (perhaps because) not everyone agrees or follows your logic. Thanks too for the many excellent responses. They illustrate why reading PB is as good as if not better than reading even the quality press on the subject.
In short, I get the picture up to and including the VONC. In fact this is what I expect to happen. And I expect it to pass, because ND is the only alternative at that point and there aren't enough nutters in the house to take us into that except by accident (although such an accident remains an ever-present possibility.)
So what next? Here I am really not sure, and perhaps the reason is relly that the anwer depends on timing and other factors (which might include public opinion, Macron, Boris himself and so on.)
So maybe we take it one step at a time.....and very carefully?
Which quality press is that?
FT's pretty good, and the Economist. The Observer is good in parts and the Guardian has improved out of all recogintion. The Times has its moments and even the Borisograph too.
I've been buying hard copy a bit more lately. \it has pickd up.
I've not read the Economist in 20 odd years since they wrote an article on an industry I knew about referencing every idiot in the industry and not anyone who knew anything actually about the topic being discussed.
As with everything trust is very easily destroyed when the basis of that trust (articles are valid and not completely wrong) is lost..
That’s astonishingly common for technical subjects, where either marketing is repeated word-for-word as journalism, or the ‘experts’ interviewed are regarded by most of the industry as idiots or shysters.
If we can’t trust the media on subjects we know a little about, then how are we supposed to trust them on the other 90% of stuff where we rely on them to be informed?
It is sister paper to the SNP propaganda leaflet, so I'm not sure how 'Britnat' to expect it to be?
It has always been one of the most rabid unionist rags and every story printed was anti independence. Massive change especially given the state of the other unionist propaganda unit, The Scotsman, which is circling the drain.
I'm beginning to wonder if Mr Luckyguy actually lives in Scotland if he hasn't noticed that the Herald is and has been pro Union.
Maybe sticks to The Scotsman and so never noticed.
I don't read a paper. The Herald group got in by touch recently with a request that my company should advertise in their titles.
Both Herald and Scotsman have been in freefall since they nailed their colours to the unionist mast, with Scotsman the worst. Almost as bad as the BBC propaganda.
Comments
Anyway DuraAce suggested we didn’t have the capability to start sending missiles to Iran, even if we wanted to.
People often fall back on blaming procedure when the real issue is the choices people are making, and it is usually absolutely weaksauce - when you close one procedural issue, people find another to moan about because the procedure was the device by which they complain, not the source of their aggrievement. It's the case with a lot of complaints about anachronistic proceses.
There are easy ways for those constituencies to have an MP who takes up their seat, and that MP does not have to be unprincipled to do so even if they also back irish unification. Even the procedure as it exists does not prevent them from being principled but complying with a procedure as any british republican could tell us.
They don't want to do that, and that's totally their choice and I respect their choice as backed by their constituents.
However given 64% of Scottish Leavers still back No that is not enough to ensure independence. If Scotland remain in the Union it will mainly be because of the still strong opposition to independence from Scottish Brexit backers.
http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2019/07/could-brexit-yet-undermine-the-future-of-the-british-state/
Note too that the Brexit Party were second in Scotland in the European Parliament elections and Boris will get many of those voters back voting for the Scottish Tories
It does not bear thinking about and at least Hunt has the good sense to dial down the warmongering talk that you seem to be getting into.
And by the way I am not on the left as you well know. I hope I am part of the vast majority of sensible UK citizens
I do not particularly want to launch military action against Iran but if they insist on capturing British flagged vessels in international waters then there would be no alternative, with or without US support.
In any case despite the usual leftist defeatism our military overall remains one of the most effective in the world and able to take on and probably beat the militaries of most nations in the world with the likely exceptions of the USA (who we would not take on anyway) and China and Russia (the latter who we would only fight alongside the US or NATO).
If this latest solution works it would be damn irritating the EU did not agree to it sooner.
Yes indeed! The EU head honchos really care about the survivability of the Conservatives.
Indeed this may be the actual outcome
G the Human Chemistry Experiment has Bernal and Castroviejo to help him and an ex World Champ (Kwia) just to bring his bidons so I'd say the odds are still in his favour. Team Fracking probably can't afford any fuck ups or crashes though.
Hopefully tbose thoughts are too dark even for Mr Johnson to contemplate.
Just what do you think would be achieved by air strikes, in the extraordinarily unlikely event of any Gulf ally allowing their launch ?
The chairman of the High Speed 2 rail project has reportedly warned that its cost could rise by £30bn.
HS2 chairman Allan Cook has written to the Department for Transport to say the high-speed line cannot be delivered within its £56bn budget, according to the Financial Times.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49048823
Have they built a mile of track yet ?
Are diehard Remainers now only selective in backing for EU law when it suits an anti UK agenda?
I am merely pointing out that if everyone jumps to military action at the first sign of troubles we will have a lot more wars than we do and that might not be great for the people involved.
At a time like this what we really need are strong diplomats, able to speak freely and with clarity and support from their governments.
It's a shame you weren't elected last year; you could have swung Epping Parish behind the drive to war.
I don't want war. It may come to it but I don't want it.
The justification of our seizure of the Iranian tanker is at the least arguable:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/20/gulf-crisis-tanker-retaliation-iran-hormuz
I look at this as follows -
Johnson is either serious about No Deal or he isn't.
If he is, there will be a VONC, which will succeed because the Gawkward squad have the balls to bring down the govt and force a Brexit election.
If he isn't - i.e. if he agrees an extension to negotiate - there will NOT be a VONC. The reason there won't be is that the numbers will not be there. And the reason the numbers will not be there is that, unlike the Gawkwards, the ERG nutjobs do NOT have the balls to bring down the govt and force a Brexit election. They may make a song & dance about Johnson's 'betrayal' - probably will - but that will be all it is. Noise.
Conclusion?
Since there is no doubt in my mind that Johnson is NOT serious about No Deal, it is the 2nd of the above scenarios that will play out. We get neither a Brexit nor a General Election in 2019. This thing rolls into 2020 and very possibly beyond. Boris Johnson, having made it to PM, does whatever it takes to hang in there.
Recommended positioning betwise for this -
Lay 2019 No Deal Brexit.
Lay 2019 Brexit date.
Lay 2019 VONC.
Back Brexit date 1st half 2020.
Back GE in 2020.
With a saver/hedge, backing a 'WA' being ratified in 2019. Just in case Boris surprises on the upside and manages to finesse something through this year.
If matters cannot be resolved through diplomacy then the US EU UK and others must come together to protect ships passing through the SOH and refer the issue to the UN security council
And probably litigable in a similar manner to the Iranian seizure of our tankers.
Wonder why we didn’t start a war with Russia over Novichok, personally?
It is quite similar to the War on Drugs. Doing it halfheartedly achieves nothing. For drugs we either we need to go much harder (like Singapore) or stop altogether and legalise it.
Its exactly like no deal. We don't want it, but we must prepare for it.
Same Latin expression applies to both.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Same dilemma as in March, same contradictions in policy that we want to magic away, same refusal to face up to our choices (honourable mention for Rory Stewart) Same lack of majority in parliament or country for any final option. I reckon it's heading to a further extension. The October date was always a strange compromise - not long enough for anything important to really happen and no EU institutions around to negotiate with anyway.
I hope I am wrong on all this, btw. I do so want that election!
Mikheil Saakashvili thought the USA had his back, but he ended up chewing his tie as Russian tanks poured across the border.
It Boris chooses to be May 2.0 he deserves to fail.
Can't see it happening, though.
Also he keeps to his promise of not going ahead with runway 3 at Heathrow, on environmental grounds.
His premiership will have then got of to a good start, with many voters.
Iran may link the two but I don't see why we, as a country that claims to uphold a rules-based order, should accept that linking.
Corbyn might prefer not to take over in these circumstances. It would mean he would own Brexit (or no-Brexit, as the case may be), so he may prefer to step aside for somebody else - a temporary leader perhaps, appointed to call a GE.
Not saying I know the answer, but isn't that a plausible scenario.
The FTPA clearly implies that if a government is no-confidenced, then others have the right to try to form a government. A sitting PM who had been rejected by the Commons couldn't just bed-block all alternatives.
In our specific example, Corbyn would undoubtedly claim the right to try to form a government, and would have precedent on his side, as well as the mechanics of the FTPA. In 1924, 1974 and indeed 2010, minority governments were appointed without having to prove the Commons' confidence first.
I suspect that the Palace might want an assurance that Corbyn could form a government, and paving or indicative votes could be used prior to an actual appointment and FTPA-compliant motion of confidence but if the House did indicate a majority prepared to accept Corbyn then Boris's position would be untenable and if he didn't resign then he would be dismissed, just as a PM who refused to resign after losing an election would be.
The question here is why would not just all (or very nearly all) Labour MPs but SNP, Lib Dems, independents and a few rebel Tories back a useless Marxist? To which the answer is that there's no-one else available to achieve the end of blocking No Deal. It's inconceivable that Corbyn would allow Labour to back either an MP from another party or a different MP from his own: that's the privilege of being by far the largest party in the coalition.
Such a Corbyn government might well have only a limited life-span: long enough to gain a further A50 extension in order to open up new Brexit opportunities and then to go back to the country in an inevitable general election but it would serve its purpose.
As Dura points out they don't seem to be coherent with our current strategy.
If we can’t trust the media on subjects we know a little about, then how are we supposed to trust them on the other 90% of stuff where we rely on them to be informed?