So it is fine to report 46% for Scottish independence including Don't Knows from an Ashcroft poll as 'Brexit now means a majority for Scottish independence' but not fine to report 44% for suspending Parliament to achieve Brexit including Don't Knows in a Comres poll as in any way a meaningful result at all?
Wrong again as usual, it was 46% excluding Don't Knows, or is it the usual Tory deliberate fibbing
No, it was 52% excluding Don't Knows, only 46% including Don't Knows
It's pretty clear that any path to a second referendum leads through cooperation with Labour. If the Greens and Lib Dems refuse to work with them, voters are going to realise that those parties aren't really so commited to stopping No Deal after all. The excuse that Corbyn isn't pure enough on Remain, despite wanting to stop No Deal and despite offering a second referendum, isn't very convincing.
If Labour were serious about blockong No Deal, they would accept a temporary leader of a Remain alliance that isn't Corbyn. Anyone with a bone of decency knows that lots of MPs will not put someone who commemorates the killers of innocent Jewish athletes. Giving the authority and dignity of the Prime Ministerial office, and the ability to fight an election on his terms, to him is a gross insult to British Jews. It would make clear to us that parliament does not have solidarity with us and we do not really belong in this country.
I'm going to ignore the attempt to change the subject because I've already commented here many times how sick I am of being told that all Jews think the same way, with the implication that those of us who don't aren't really Jews.
Instead, getting back to the actual point, even if people conclude that Labour aren't serious about blocking No Deal, it's still deeply damaging to the Greens and, especially, the Lib Dems if people also conclude that they aren't serious about it either, because that's their USP.
The vast majority of Jews in this country are horrified of Corbyn, which is why every Jewish organization is so opposed to him. It is not changing the subject to bring up Corbyn's anti-Semitism when discussing whether people should back him as PM. It is as fundamental to the discussion as Trump's racism when discussing if he is fit to be President.
What if, on 2nd September, Boris pre-empts all of it and announces we're having a general election?
Except Boris cannot announce that. FTPA!
Did you miss Theresa May doing exactly that on 18th April 2017 (after we heard a never ending stream of people claiming it couldn't/wouldn't happen)
That would be the never ending stream of people telling us that Theresa May was nailed on to be PM until a year after her VONC victory. Or even, beyond....
I do think all this talk of Johnson choosing a general election date after 31 October must have made the 2/3 majority route to an election much more problematical for him. Are 2/3 of MPs going to give him that power?
Corbyn gets his Brexit. He can hope it comes with a large side-order of chaos. Suits him fine.....
The point is that if 2/3 of MPs were happy with No Deal Brexit, there would be no chance of the House of Commons blocking Brexit, and no point in having an election before Brexit Day. Johnson could simply wait until his mission has been accomplished, in the expectation that the Brexit Party will vanish in a puff of irrelevance once its raison d'etre has disappeared.
I would have added . You will do anything to keep your red box, you silly b**** ! Totally shameless. And what did she say about Johnson in the 2016 EU ref debate ?
If we had the population density of Canada or Australia I would be in favour of giving everyone in Hong Kong the right to move to the UK. In fact I don't know why those two countries don't consider it.
Population density doesn't have much to do with it. Britain has loads of space - the reason it sometimes seems crowded is that everyone wants to live in the same parts of it (ie the big cities in the prosperous areas, plus their surroundings) which is equally true in Canada and Australia, which also have fairly similar planning system disfunction.
We had to suffer all this rubbish yesterday with Cyclefree's implication that "no deal" = Yugoslavia break up.
What we had to suffer yesterday was you inventing what I wrote. Or perhaps a failure of comprehension on your part. Both rubbish and tiresome.
What you wrote was entirely clear - a fact picked up by several other posters on this site.
Your language and analogies were foolish and intemperate, a fact that by default you now seem to acknowledge.
Give it up , you are now a stalker. Go get a life stop boring the pants off us. Anyone with a few braincells knows what she meant.
Malc, just to calm you down....Woodford Reserve is 25 quid at my local Tesco, dunno if that's the case in North Britain, though!
LOL, I think I was robbed, think it was second time I have been in ASDA , was getting some beer and assumed they would be reasonably priced. I think I paid £32 and see both Tesco and Amazon have it at £25. Nice of you to be thinking of me and my blood pressure.
It won't be exactly the same as the British people lack the slavic bloodlust. They are generally too podgy and lazy to kill each other's kids.
But if we ever do, Brendan O'Neill will have an article justifying it by the end of the first week. As long as it's his far-right side doing the killing, of course.
What if, on 2nd September, Boris pre-empts all of it and announces we're having a general election?
Except Boris cannot announce that. FTPA!
Did you miss Theresa May doing exactly that on 18th April 2017 (after we heard a never ending stream of people claiming it couldn't/wouldn't happen)
That would be the never ending stream of people telling us that Theresa May was nailed on to be PM until a year after her VONC victory. Or even, beyond....
I do think all this talk of Johnson choosing a general election date after 31 October must have made the 2/3 majority route to an election much more problematical for him. Are 2/3 of MPs going to give him that power?
Corbyn gets his Brexit. He can hope it comes with a large side-order of chaos. Suits him fine.....
The point is that if 2/3 of MPs were happy with No Deal Brexit, there would be no chance of the House of Commons blocking Brexit, and no point in having an election before Brexit Day. Johnson could simply wait until his mission has been accomplished, in the expectation that the Brexit Party will vanish in a puff of irrelevance once its raison d'etre has disappeared.
The Brexit Party will largely vanish anyway if Boris is seen to be going through with Brexit. It might still attract a few votes from Leave ex-Labour who can't stomach voting Tory. But that will still be fine and dandy for the blues.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
So it is fine to report 46% for Scottish independence including Don't Knows from an Ashcroft poll as 'Brexit now means a majority for Scottish independence' but not fine to report 44% for suspending Parliament to achieve Brexit including Don't Knows in a Comres poll as in any way a meaningful result at all?
Wrong again as usual, it was 46% excluding Don't Knows, or is it the usual Tory deliberate fibbing
No, it was 52% excluding Don't Knows, only 46% including Don't Knows
From the horses mouth: Asked how they would vote in such a contest, 46% said they would vote Yes to independence, and 43% No. Excluding those who say they don’t know or wouldn’t vote, this amounts to a lead of 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland. You will see the 11% Don't Knows added to the 46% and 43% percent give teh 52% and 48%. How does it add up and where are the missing 11% in your mistaken thinking if they are included in 89%. Methinks you cannot count.
We had to suffer all this rubbish yesterday with Cyclefree's implication that "no deal" = Yugoslavia break up.
Cyclefree implied no such thing and was clear about that.
Cyclefree implied that the Yugoslavia break up was what potentiually happened when countries didn't agree on a divorce. It was set out in direct counterpoint to the Velvet Divorce.
Why quote the Yugoslavia break up if it was utterly irrelevant to the argument, except to make an implication by default.
I am glad that seemingly everyone now accepts the inappropriateness of its inclusion.
Can we assume you are comfortable with the USSR comparison given that you haven't commented on it and have obsessively posted about Yugoslavia?
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
UN sanctions but China would probably veto as a Security Council permanent member, otherwise G8 action and UN General Assembly vote of disapproval
I do have a good feeling about this at the moment. My main worry is about the type of stunts he might pull if it looks like he's losing it. Also how he will be levered out of the White House if the election is in any way close enough to bitch about the result.
For example, if HE rather than HRC had won the PV but lost the EC on wafer thin margins in a couple of states in 2016, do we think he would have immediately conceded as she did? Of course he wouldn't.
So it is fine to report 46% for Scottish independence including Don't Knows from an Ashcroft poll as 'Brexit now means a majority for Scottish independence' but not fine to report 44% for suspending Parliament to achieve Brexit including Don't Knows in a Comres poll as in any way a meaningful result at all?
Wrong again as usual, it was 46% excluding Don't Knows, or is it the usual Tory deliberate fibbing
No, it was 52% excluding Don't Knows, only 46% including Don't Knows
From the horses mouth: Asked how they would vote in such a contest, 46% said they would vote Yes to independence, and 43% No. Excluding those who say they don’t know or wouldn’t vote, this amounts to a lead of 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland. You will see the 11% Don't Knows added to the 46% and 43% percent give teh 52% and 48%. How does it add up and where are the missing 11% in your mistaken thinking if they are included in 89%. Methinks you cannot count.
So as I said 46% Yes including Don't Knows, 52% excluding Don't Knows
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.
Except they have shut the airport so they can't leave.
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.
It's pretty clear that any path to a second referendum leads through cooperation with Labour. If the Greens and Lib Dems refuse to work with them, voters are going to realise that those parties aren't really so commited to stopping No Deal after all. The excuse that Corbyn isn't pure enough on Remain, despite wanting to stop No Deal and despite offering a second referendum, isn't very convincing.
Yes exactly. Labour's position is far more inclined to remain, there's really not much to criticise on that front. They are just not conveying because they want to avoid offending leavers. The reality is that anyone who wants to stop no deal has to vote against the tories by voting for the party best placed to stop it. In many seats that will be the LDs but in a far bigger number it will be Labour.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.
Except they have shut the airport so they can't leave.
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.
We can take in any that manage to escape. I feel terribly for them. We in the West made a terrible mistake by embracing China and allowing them to get rich without requiring democracy.
So it is fine to report 46% for Scottish independence including Don't Knows from an Ashcroft poll as 'Brexit now means a majority for Scottish independence' but not fine to report 44% for suspending Parliament to achieve Brexit including Don't Knows in a Comres poll as in any way a meaningful result at all?
Wrong again as usual, it was 46% excluding Don't Knows, or is it the usual Tory deliberate fibbing
No, it was 52% excluding Don't Knows, only 46% including Don't Knows
From the horses mouth: Asked how they would vote in such a contest, 46% said they would vote Yes to independence, and 43% No. Excluding those who say they don’t know or wouldn’t vote, this amounts to a lead of 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland. You will see the 11% Don't Knows added to the 46% and 43% percent give teh 52% and 48%. How does it add up and where are the missing 11% in your mistaken thinking if they are included in 89%. Methinks you cannot count.
So as I said 46% Yes including Don't Knows, 52% excluding Don't Knows
How can the % rise if you remove something and if they are included on the 89% then what was voted for on the missing 11%
What if, on 2nd September, Boris pre-empts all of it and announces we're having a general election?
Except Boris cannot announce that. FTPA!
Did you miss Theresa May doing exactly that on 18th April 2017 (after we heard a never ending stream of people claiming it couldn't/wouldn't happen)
That would be the never ending stream of people telling us that Theresa May was nailed on to be PM until a year after her VONC victory. Or even, beyond....
I do think all this talk of Johnson choosing a general election date after 31 October must have made the 2/3 majority route to an election much more problematical for him. Are 2/3 of MPs going to give him that power?
Corbyn gets his Brexit. He can hope it comes with a large side-order of chaos. Suits him fine.....
He won't want to be seen waving it through though. A prebrexit election where he hoovers up the stop no deal vote would be better for him.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
Like Brexit you need to believe and have faith in the project.
None of this defeatist collaborator talk from you.
With belief I’m sure 3 Commando Brigade, 16 Air Assault, and the Royal Navy could defeat the People’s Army of China in the battle of Hong Kong.
I’d say it was unlikely that China can do a Tianammen on Hong Kong and keep things under control.
Plus the financial cost to China could be catastrophic- particularly if the West starts a boycott.
Apple must be filling their trousers.
The USA has not done a single thing about Saudi Arabia torturing and murdering an American resident in cold blood in another country. Trump came out and said we should not because we sell them a lot of weapons.
It's pretty clear that any path to a second referendum leads through cooperation with Labour. If the Greens and Lib Dems refuse to work with them, voters are going to realise that those parties aren't really so commited to stopping No Deal after all. The excuse that Corbyn isn't pure enough on Remain, despite wanting to stop No Deal and despite offering a second referendum, isn't very convincing.
The idea that Labour are not seriously opposed to No Deal flies in the face of all the actual evidence. And, yes, what you say is right. The only route to Ref2 goes via Corbyn as PM.
IMO the reverse is also true. The only route to Corbyn as PM goes via Ref2. By which I mean he can win an election only if it is before Brexit and on the basis of offering the Ref.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
We couldn't beat a carpet never mind China.
We beat Argentina on our own but they are about half our size, China is over 10 times our size, we would need the US and likely India alongside too but it is not going to happen.
Though I hope Scots Nats are glad that Boris is UK PM not Xi?
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.
Except they have shut the airport so they can't leave.
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.
We can take in any that manage to escape. I feel terribly for them. We in the West made a terrible mistake by embracing China and allowing them to get rich without requiring democracy.
We could, although if any do escape a massacre they will likely head for Taiwan in the first instance.
In fact I can't help wondering what the government of Taiwan is thinking at this moment. They must be pretty nervous looking at events and wondering if they will be next.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
Like Brexit you need to believe and have faith in the project.
None of this defeatist collaborator talk from you.
With belief I’m sure 3 Commando Brigade, 16 Air Assault, and the Royal Navy could defeat the People’s Army of China in the battle of Hong Kong.
Believe in Britain and her armed forces.
Behind Modi and Trump carrying the baggage train fine, we are not going in on our own
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
I recently read the Tiananmen Papers about the discussions within the Chinese leadership - very clearly they will tolerate no dissent to Communist Party rule and Xi has already consolidated power and will not want to look "weak". I fear this will end very badly for Hong Kong. Of course many of the protestors will have been born post-1997, so will not have BN(O) status.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.
Except they have shut the airport so they can't leave.
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.
We can take in any that manage to escape. I feel terribly for them. We in the West made a terrible mistake by embracing China and allowing them to get rich without requiring democracy.
We could, although if any do escape a massacre they will likely head for Taiwan in the first instance.
In fact I can't help wondering what the government of Taiwan is thinking at this moment. They must be pretty nervous looking at events and wondering if they will be next.
Trump has made clear the US stands firmly behind Taiwan and has even proposed arms sales to Taipei
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
We couldn't beat a carpet never mind China.
We beat Argentina on our own but they are about half our size, China is over 10 times our size, we would need the US and likely India alongside too but it is not going to happen.
Though I hope Scots Nats are glad that Boris is UK PM not Xi?
Well it was only a few days ago you were for sending in the troops to sort out the Scots who wanted a referendum.
I’d say it was unlikely that China can do a Tianammen on Hong Kong and keep things under control.
Plus the financial cost to China could be catastrophic- particularly if the West starts a boycott.
Apple must be filling their trousers.
The USA has not done a single thing about Saudi Arabia torturing and murdering an American resident in cold blood in another country. Trump came out and said we should not because we sell them a lot of weapons.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
I recently read the Tiananmen Papers about the discussions within the Chinese leadership - very clearly they will tolerate no dissent to Communist Party rule and Xi has already consolidated power and will not want to look "weak". I fear this will end very badly for Hong Kong. Of course many of the protestors will have been born post-1997, so will not have BN(O) status.
Unfortunately the simple rule is you don't get to the top of a totalitarian system by (a) being nice or (b) having a desire to change the system. That's even true of those who are now considered radicals, like Gorbachev. And it is very definitely true of the leadership of the Communist Party of China.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
We couldn't beat a carpet never mind China.
We beat Argentina on our own but they are about half our size, China is over 10 times our size, we would need the US and likely India alongside too but it is not going to happen.
Though I hope Scots Nats are glad that Boris is UK PM not Xi?
Well it was only a few days ago you were for sending in the troops to sort out the Scots who wanted a referendum.
I was saying the PM could do a Rajoy and stop a referendum taking place as the precedent has been set by Spain, not necessarily advocating it, certainly not a full scale massacre in Glasgow (though hopefully that will not occur in Hong Kong either)
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
Like Brexit you need to believe and have faith in the project.
None of this defeatist collaborator talk from you.
With belief I’m sure 3 Commando Brigade, 16 Air Assault, and the Royal Navy could defeat the People’s Army of China in the battle of Hong Kong.
Believe in Britain and her armed forces.
Behind Modi and Trump carrying the baggage train fine, we are not going in on our own
Especially as our troops are presumably all holed up in Carlisle and Berwick awaiting the signal from Bozo to go north and pacify Malc and his mates.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
Like Brexit you need to believe and have faith in the project.
None of this defeatist collaborator talk from you.
With belief I’m sure 3 Commando Brigade, 16 Air Assault, and the Royal Navy could defeat the People’s Army of China in the battle of Hong Kong.
Believe in Britain and her armed forces.
Behind Modi and Trump carrying the baggage train fine, we are not going in on our own
Especially as our troops are presumably all holed up in Carlisle and Berwick awaiting the signal from Bozo to go north and pacify Malc and his mates.
Malc is too good a man with a turnip to be pacified by a load of Sassenach jessies!
We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
Like Brexit you need to believe and have faith in the project.
None of this defeatist collaborator talk from you.
With belief I’m sure 3 Commando Brigade, 16 Air Assault, and the Royal Navy could defeat the People’s Army of China in the battle of Hong Kong.
Believe in Britain and her armed forces.
Behind Modi and Trump carrying the baggage train fine, we are not going in on our own
Especially as our troops are presumably all holed up in Carlisle and Berwick awaiting the signal from Bozo to go north and pacify Malc and his mates.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
Our population is 60 million, China's is over 1 billion.
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
If we could stop buying stuff made there.
Nothing left for us to buy then , you know anything not made there
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
We couldn't beat a carpet never mind China.
We beat Argentina on our own but they are about half our size, China is over 10 times our size, we would need the US and likely India alongside too but it is not going to happen.
Though I hope Scots Nats are glad that Boris is UK PM not Xi?
We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
I recently read the Tiananmen Papers about the discussions within the Chinese leadership - very clearly they will tolerate no dissent to Communist Party rule and Xi has already consolidated power and will not want to look "weak". I fear this will end very badly for Hong Kong. Of course many of the protestors will have been born post-1997, so will not have BN(O) status.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
What's the point of having Trident if we're not going to use it on China?
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
The first part of your question is reasonable. And indeed was a question asked by no less than Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who is hardly a bleeding heart Liberal (although it isn't clear whether that was before or after he started taking funny money). Ultimately, the idea of Trident is it's there so we never need it and never use it.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
We couldn't beat a carpet never mind China.
We beat Argentina on our own but they are about half our size, China is over 10 times our size, we would need the US and likely India alongside too but it is not going to happen.
Though I hope Scots Nats are glad that Boris is UK PM not Xi?
Sounds like two cheeks of the same arse to me
If that was true tanks and lorries would already be arriving on the Scottish borders as we speak
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Thank goodness we have a prime minister who thinks power grows out of a barrel of pork.
We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
The purpose of the British Nationality Act 1981 was to prevent British citizens of Hong Kong from moving here.
Quite a contrast to Ted Heath's much more compassionate approach to the issues around East African Asian migration, such as our Home Secretaries parents.
We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.
We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.
We have nuclear weapons though unlike Hong Kong
Nuclear weapons are bugger all use if you're actually invaded. The idea is that their existence stops anyone invading you in the first place, and North Korea will tell you that this has worked so far.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
The purpose of the British Nationality Act 1981 was to prevent British citizens of Hong Kong from moving here.
Quite a contrast to Ted Heath's much more compassionate approach to the issues around East African Asian migration, such as our Home Secretaries parents.
I've got some generic Democrat bets on, including one I'd really really like to win (It's against a personal friend). Of all the likely nominees (My big 3 decent greens), Warren's H2H polling causes me the most concern.
My supposition is that Warren's head to head is based on low info voters knowing only 2 things about her, she's a Dem and Pocahontas.
If she becomes the Nominee then the debate over who said what about any native American heritage gets a fuller, less Trump led, airing and then other issues start driving the head to head.
If Caroline Lucas truly wants to stop a no-deal Brexit, she must work with Corbyn https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/13/caroline-lucas-no-deal-brexit-corbyn-green-party-labour It's pretty clear that any path to a second referendum leads through cooperation with Labour. If the Greens and Lib Dems refuse to work with them, voters are going to realise that those parties aren't really so commited to stopping No Deal after all. The excuse that Corbyn isn't pure enough on Remain, despite wanting to stop No Deal and despite offering a second referendum, isn't very convincing.
The idea that Labour are not seriously opposed to No Deal flies in the face of all the actual evidence. And, yes, what you say is right. The only route to Ref2 goes via Corbyn as PM. IMO the reverse is also true. The only route to Corbyn as PM goes via Ref2. By which I mean he can win an election only if it is before Brexit and on the basis of offering the Ref. So, Want the Ref? - OK, swallow Jez as PM. Want Jez as PM? - OK, swallow Ref2.
The problem is that Corbyn is thoroughly untrustworthy. Just as ABDPJohnson, of course.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
The purpose of the British Nationality Act 1981 was to prevent British citizens of Hong Kong from moving here.
Quite a contrast to Ted Heath's much more compassionate approach to the issues around East African Asian migration, such as our Home Secretaries parents.
There was no threat to life in Hong Kong. But soon there might be.
If there is another Tianneman then we should allow British citizens the right to reside here.
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.
So it is fine to report 46% for Scottish independence including Don't Knows from an Ashcroft poll as 'Brexit now means a majority for Scottish independence' but not fine to report 44% for suspending Parliament to achieve Brexit including Don't Knows in a Comres poll as in any way a meaningful result at all?
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
It was well known at the time that the Chinese made it clear that they would take over square miles of rubble if that is what it took but take it over they would.
We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.
We have nuclear weapons though unlike Hong Kong
Hong Kong doesn't have nuclear weapons in the same way as Birmingham doesn't have nuclear weapons.
We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.
We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
In the 1980s a defence official commented that he was more at home with the idea of a Russian invasion than with a military reorganisation. He knew what he could do to fight off a Russian invasion.
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.
We have nuclear weapons though unlike Hong Kong
I'm confused now. We're gonna nuke HK?
That's one way to prevent the Chinese carrying out another Tiananmen Square. Lateral thinking from HYUFD.
From talking to people in our HK office, who were very active in the early protests and have the scars to prove it, my sense is that the protesters are losing a level of support. People in HK are not stupid, they know all about Tienanmen, they know there is only so far you can push the Chinese authorities. It seems to me that there is concern the pushing may have gone too far and that the protests are now becoming entirely counter-productive. This is the sad reality of totalitarianism. The only way it will change is if there is change in Beijing.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.
Except they have shut the airport so they can't leave.
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.
We can take in any that manage to escape. I feel terribly for them. We in the West made a terrible mistake by embracing China and allowing them to get rich without requiring democracy.
Yes. But it was our desire to get rich off the back of the Chinese consumer which drove that attitude.
We had to suffer all this rubbish yesterday with Cyclefree's implication that "no deal" = Yugoslavia break up.
What we had to suffer yesterday was you inventing what I wrote. Or perhaps a failure of comprehension on your part. Both rubbish and tiresome.
What you wrote was entirely clear - a fact picked up by several other posters on this site.
Your language and analogies were foolish and intemperate, a fact that by default you now seem to acknowledge.
Give it up , you are now a stalker. Go get a life stop boring the pants off us. Anyone with a few braincells knows what she meant.
Malc, just to calm you down....Woodford Reserve is 25 quid at my local Tesco, dunno if that's the case in North Britain, though!
LOL, I think I was robbed, think it was second time I have been in ASDA , was getting some beer and assumed they would be reasonably priced. I think I paid £32 and see both Tesco and Amazon have it at £25. Nice of you to be thinking of me and my blood pressure.
£23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
We can take in those facing slaughter and make a moral stand.
Except they have shut the airport so they can't leave.
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.
We can take in any that manage to escape. I feel terribly for them. We in the West made a terrible mistake by embracing China and allowing them to get rich without requiring democracy.
We could, although if any do escape a massacre they will likely head for Taiwan in the first instance.
In fact I can't help wondering what the government of Taiwan is thinking at this moment. They must be pretty nervous looking at events and wondering if they will be next.
Taiwan is an entirely different kettle of world class seafood, believe me.
Just for reference, the Japanese started their WWII assault on Hong Kong on 8th Dec 1941 and the British surrendered on Christmas Day, after some bloody battles. Does anyone think the Chinese Arms will meet such determined, and well armed, resistance?
The disintegration of Yugoslavia was the end of a political grouping of disparate areas without an equitable economic and devolved democratic structure. It is a potential future for the EU.
Gloomy in the extreme but nevertheless a valid point.
My main reason for voting Remain was not that Brexit will weaken us - although it almost certainly will - but that it will weaken the EU and make it more likely that it fractures into a collection of aggressively competing nations all determined to 'make themselves great' again. That is not an attractive proposition. Or rather it is attractive only to the unattractive.
So there you go. This is the sort of wise and big picture type of guy I am.
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
In what way don't we compete with Europe at the moment? My company has any number of European competitors, as well as many others from other parts of the world. Brexit will hand our European competition advantages over us and is likely to mean we have to open up an office in the EU27, so diverting resources, investments and job opportunities from our UK operation.
Politically.
The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.
Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.
Just for reference, the Japanese started their WWII assault on Hong Kong on 8th Dec 1941 and the British surrendered on Christmas Day, after some bloody battles. Does anyone think the Chinese Arms will meet such determined, and well armed, resistance?
'No' would about cover it. For one thing, the demonstrators don't have artillery or machine guns.
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.
It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.
So it is fine to report 46% for Scottish independence including Don't Knows from an Ashcroft poll as 'Brexit now means a majority for Scottish independence' but not fine to report 44% for suspending Parliament to achieve Brexit including Don't Knows in a Comres poll as in any way a meaningful result at all?
That's not what the question asked.
Also the Scottish poll was a voting intention poll. (By the way, the 52% Yes excluded not just "Don't knows" but also "Won't votes".).
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.
It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.
Racism doesn't bode well for anyone, no matter how it's "funnelled."
Yep. Time is up for Hong Kong and its "special status". Trust between the authorities and the people has totally broken down. It can surely only be a matter of time now. Not sure what we or anyone else can do about it.
I am sure, and unfortunately the answer is nothing.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
The purpose of the British Nationality Act 1981 was to prevent British citizens of Hong Kong from moving here.
Quite a contrast to Ted Heath's much more compassionate approach to the issues around East African Asian migration, such as our Home Secretaries parents.
Indeed. As a result many of those with high level of skills and/or lots of Wonga sorted it with Canada. Take a look at Vancouver.
We're not going to have a long and heated argument about how we can defeat the Chinese military, are we? It's crazy enough in here as it is with Brexit.
I doubt the recent exchanges on the air defences of the Republic of Ireland will be easily surpassed when it comes to the ill-informed arguing with great intensity about the irrelevant.
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.
It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.
Racism doesn't bode well for anyone, no matter how it's "funnelled."
Who said anything about racism? We were talking about competition.
We had to suffer all this rubbish yesterday with Cyclefree's implication that "no deal" = Yugoslavia break up.
What we had to suffer yesterday was you inventing what I wrote. Or perhaps a failure of comprehension on your part. Both rubbish and tiresome.
What you wrote was entirely clear - a fact picked up by several other posters on this site.
Your language and analogies were foolish and intemperate, a fact that by default you now seem to acknowledge.
Give it up , you are now a stalker. Go get a life stop boring the pants off us. Anyone with a few braincells knows what she meant.
Malc, just to calm you down....Woodford Reserve is 25 quid at my local Tesco, dunno if that's the case in North Britain, though!
LOL, I think I was robbed, think it was second time I have been in ASDA , was getting some beer and assumed they would be reasonably priced. I think I paid £32 and see both Tesco and Amazon have it at £25. Nice of you to be thinking of me and my blood pressure.
£23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.
Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.
Ozil and Kolasinac are said to be deeply concerned that last month's attempted mugging has rolled into something bigger and the German star installed 24-hour security - including guard dogs - outside his house as a result.
Ozil hasn't been since in recent days having gone into hiding.
And Kolasinac's wife is said to have fled back to Germany in fear for her safety vowing never to return.
Ozil gone into hiding? So he's on the pitch at the Emirates then? Boom! Boom!
There was a story about a Liverpool gang that threatened to break Steven Gerrard's legs.
So he went to Glasgow where the Old Firm relationship is far more cordial......
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.
It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.
Racism doesn't bode well for anyone, no matter how it's "funnelled."
Who said anything about racism? We were talking about competition.
You'd better check the post you were responding to. You must not have read it.
The disintegration of Yugoslavia was the end of a political grouping of disparate areas without an equitable economic and devolved democratic structure. It is a potential future for the EU.
Gloomy in the extreme but nevertheless a valid point.
My main reason for voting Remain was not that Brexit will weaken us - although it almost certainly will - but that it will weaken the EU and make it more likely that it fractures into a collection of aggressively competing nations all determined to 'make themselves great' again. That is not an attractive proposition. Or rather it is attractive only to the unattractive.
So there you go. This is the sort of wise and big picture type of guy I am.
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
In what way don't we compete with Europe at the moment? My company has any number of European competitors, as well as many others from other parts of the world. Brexit will hand our European competition advantages over us and is likely to mean we have to open up an office in the EU27, so diverting resources, investments and job opportunities from our UK operation.
Politically.
The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.
Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.
Hmmm- the level playing field is necessary to gain the access to the EU market that the UK has said it wants. If it does not want that level of access, then obviously it has much more room to diverge. The question then becomes how helpful that is.
The problem is that Corbyn is thoroughly untrustworthy. Just as ABDPJohnson, of course.
He might be but the evidence for this (unlike with Johnson) is patchy. Course, if he becomes PM after an election where he promises Ref2 and then welshes on it - what a rotter - but I do not think for a moment that he would.
No, if Remainers wish to cancel Brexit they must vote tactically to elect a minority Corbyn government. If they hate the idea of PM Corbyn more than they hate Brexit then fair enough - Brexit will happen under a Tory govt.
But I do wish these anti-Corbyn Remainers would be honest about it rather than coming out with all this "He really wants No Deal" and "Labour are not a Remain party" and "Who knows what Labour policy on Brexit is?" nonsense.
The disintegration of Yugoslavia was the end of a political grouping of disparate areas without an equitable economic and devolved democratic structure. It is a potential future for the EU.
Gloomy in the extreme but nevertheless a valid point.
My main reason for voting Remain was not that Brexit will weaken us - although it almost certainly will - but that it will weaken the EU and make it more likely that it fractures into a collection of aggressively competing nations all determined to 'make themselves great' again. That is not an attractive proposition. Or rather it is attractive only to the unattractive.
So there you go. This is the sort of wise and big picture type of guy I am.
Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.
Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.
Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.
I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.
Until we invest as much in R&D as the USA or Germany, which surpass us by 1.0% and 1.4% of GDP respectively, we are not likely to be competitive.
The problem is that Corbyn is thoroughly untrustworthy. Just as ABDPJohnson, of course.
He might be but the evidence for this (unlike with Johnson) is patchy. Course, if he becomes PM after an election where he promises Ref2 and then welshes on it - what a rotter - but I do not think for a moment that he would.
No, if Remainers wish to cancel Brexit they must vote tactically to elect a minority Corbyn government. If they hate the idea of PM Corbyn more than they hate Brexit then fair enough - Brexit will happen under a Tory govt.
But I do wish these anti-Corbyn Remainers would be honest about it rather than coming out with all this "He really wants No Deal" and "Labour are not a Remain party" and "Who knows what Labour policy on Brexit is?" nonsense.
Until I see concrete evidence that Corbyn will lift every sinew towards blocking No Deal, then I remain unconvinced that the Seamus/Corbyn strategy is not to engineer a Tory No Deal and use the chaos.
Comments
Nice of you to be thinking of me and my blood pressure.
Asked how they would vote in such a contest, 46% said they would vote Yes to independence, and 43% No. Excluding those who say they don’t know or wouldn’t vote, this amounts to a lead of 52% to 48% for an independent Scotland.
You will see the 11% Don't Knows added to the 46% and 43% percent give teh 52% and 48%. How does it add up and where are the missing 11% in your mistaken thinking if they are included in 89%.
Methinks you cannot count.
Put quite simply, if China chooses to invade Hong Kong with full military might there is no country on earth that has the power to do anything to stop them. This is indeed the reason why Thatcher was so sanguine about handing it back in the first place. Deng apparently said 'hand it back, or we take it back.'
And Xi seems to be very much a fan of Mao's dictum that 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
Now if we spent all the Trident/Trident replacement money on conventional forces we might achieve something.
For example, if HE rather than HRC had won the PV but lost the EC on wafer thin margins in a couple of states in 2016, do we think he would have immediately conceded as she did? Of course he wouldn't.
The second part is not. Whatever the makeup of our armed forces there is no way we could hope to defend Hong Kong against a country that can put 300 million men under arms.
I suspect you didn't mean it totally seriously however
It would probably take the US, India and UK combining conventional forces to defeat China in WW3, never mind the UK alone. Not going to happen
It might be possible later for Britain to cut a deal over any dual nationals so they are allowed to leave Hong Kong rather than be interned or tried, but there's no way we can prevent the Chinese army from causing massive death and destruction if they are determined to do so.
Plus the financial cost to China could be catastrophic- particularly if the West starts a boycott.
Apple must be filling their trousers.
None of this defeatist collaborator talk from you.
With belief I’m sure 3 Commando Brigade, 16 Air Assault, and the Royal Navy could defeat the People’s Army of China in the battle of Hong Kong.
Believe in Britain and her armed forces.
IMO the reverse is also true. The only route to Corbyn as PM goes via Ref2. By which I mean he can win an election only if it is before Brexit and on the basis of offering the Ref.
So,
Want the Ref? - OK, swallow Jez as PM.
Want Jez as PM? - OK, swallow Ref2.
Though I hope Scots Nats are glad that Boris is UK PM not Xi?
In fact I can't help wondering what the government of Taiwan is thinking at this moment. They must be pretty nervous looking at events and wondering if they will be next.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taiwan-china-tension-us-trump-admin-proposes-arms-sale-abrams-tanks-stinger-missiles-taipei-2019-07-09/
https://twitter.com/DamianSurvation/status/1161253083889975296
When asked what he could do, he replied, 'Nothing, so it's nice and easy and we don't bother any more.'*
Similarly with the Chinese. If they are determined to do something vile inhumane and cretinous there is nothing we can do.
So no, nobody is arguing about that. We're just coming up with a variety of reasons as to why we're helpless.
*A slightly reworked version of this made its way into Yes Prime Minister, Man Overboard.
Quite a contrast to Ted Heath's much more compassionate approach to the issues around East African Asian migration, such as our Home Secretaries parents.
If she becomes the Nominee then the debate over who said what about any native American heritage gets a fuller, less Trump led, airing and then other issues start driving the head to head.
If there is another Tianneman then we should allow British citizens the right to reside here.
It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.
The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.
The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.
Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.
I love European football even more, after all my club is the current Champions of Europe, for the sixth time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VzNx27VAXw&t=
I do not understand your point about politics.
No, if Remainers wish to cancel Brexit they must vote tactically to elect a minority Corbyn government. If they hate the idea of PM Corbyn more than they hate Brexit then fair enough - Brexit will happen under a Tory govt.
But I do wish these anti-Corbyn Remainers would be honest about it rather than coming out with all this "He really wants No Deal" and "Labour are not a Remain party" and "Who knows what Labour policy on Brexit is?" nonsense.
We will see on 4th September