but as has been pointed out Germany has no intention or capability to police Europe. It freeloads off the US and needs the apperance of the EU to leverage its position. It has now avoidably put itself in the position where iit will have to make major revisions to its position. Yugoslavia and Ukraine were acts forced on Germany by others, Brexit is entirely self inflicted.
It's not about policing but defending Europe. Germany's Army is of comparable size to the UK's. Admittedly it can and will do more in the future, but allegations of "freeloading" are risible. The US are spending above 4% of GDP not to defend Europe but on nonsense like Iraq and similar, which then creates other problems we have to deal with. That's no contribution to European security.
The demilitarisation of Europe is something to be proud of, not ashamed of. It is a product of the continent that used to be at constant war, now being at constant peace. It is a piece of progress that our ancestors would have been very envious of.
which country is the Crimea in ?
Currently Russia, but no longer fighting there methinks.
The period of European peace is quite remarkable over the last quarter century, despite a few still ongoing issues in the former USSR.
the period is indeed remarkable but lets not pretend thgere isnt any fighting, Basically Europe rolls over every time theres shooting, Crimea, then the Ukraine. Germany and France arent going to do anything except hide behing the US.
Nah, the reason that countries across the continent, including our own, have run down their armed forces so much is the common recognition that they are mostly a waste of money and resources.
Whaley Bridge recently showed exactly how useful a well-funded and organised military can be in civil emergencies.
What sort of 300m grouping do you think is necessary to help at Whaley Bridge?
I have no idea what a '300m grouping is'.
But I do know that civilians don't have many Chinhook helicopters handy, nor are trained engineers to do such work immediately available. And the 40 soldiers who helped build a sandbag wall to stop a stream from filling up the reservoir can't exactly be got off the shelf.
They helped the fire brigade, police and others perform a critical task.
Soldiers are trained to fight and kill people. The rest is a freebie. You can buy a Chinook for your local police force or fire brigade if the will is there.
The demilitarisation of Europe is something to be proud of, not ashamed of. It is a product of the continent that used to be at constant war, now being at constant peace. It is a piece of progress that our ancestors would have been very envious of.
which country is the Crimea in ?
Currently Russia, but no longer fighting there methinks.
The period of European peace is quite remarkable over the last quarter century, despite a few still ongoing issues in the former USSR.
the period is indeed remarkable but lets not pretend thgere isnt any fighting, Basically Europe rolls over every time theres shooting, Crimea, then the Ukraine. Germany and France arent going to do anything except hide behing the US.
Nah, the reason that countries across the continent, including our own, have run down their armed forces so much is the common recognition that they are mostly a waste of money and resources.
Whaley Bridge recently showed exactly how useful a well-funded and organised military can be in civil emergencies.
What sort of 300m grouping do you think is necessary to help at Whaley Bridge?
I have no idea what a '300m grouping is'.
But I do know that civilians don't have many Chinhook helicopters handy, nor are trained engineers to do such work immediately available. And the 40 soldiers who helped build a sandbag wall to stop a stream from filling up the reservoir can't exactly be got off the shelf.
They helped the fire brigade, police and others perform a critical task.
Soldiers are trained to fight and kill people. The rest is a freebie. You can buy a Chinook for your local police force or fire brigade if the will is there.
Funny how the backstop couldn't be replaced, there were no alternatives, it was absolutely fundamentally required . . . only to then say lets spend the next 30 days discussing its replacement.
Serious grown up politics entering the discussion. Well done Boris!
And interesting that it is Merkel - not Tusk or Varadkar - that was the one to go to, in order to make progress. The sheriff is calling the shots now, BMW no doubt have been in touch
Yes and Merkel suggesting an alternative to the backstop could be found within 30 days
That the UK is leaving the EU is probably the greatest failure of German foreign policy since 1945.
The manner of the departure simply accentuates the failure.
It's also one of the greatest fp failures of the uk government too.
It's been a massive misunderstanding, by both sides, of the others perspective on what the EU was for. Had they, in the 1980's proposed a long term goal as to what the EU would look like (without even putting a timeframe on it) people all over europe would have had the chance to buy into it. now they are faced with brexit in the UK, hard liners in Hungary and populists in Italy. If people are not given a vision, or are not buying into it then it's not a surprise when things go wrong. The EU and it's constituent governments should have had a foreign policy which provided that vision and changed it when it wasn't working/unpopular. instead they brought in the Euro without the mechanisms to support it (both political and financial) and suffered the consequences.
A good summary. Brexit is a dramatic failure by all the actors involved. So easily avoidable. It took decades of lies, evasions, cock-ups, wankery, posturing, and general political incompetence to get us to this remarkable and perilous point.
History will not be kind to either “side”.
Quite.
I think we’ve been talking past each other for decades. The Brits tried to convince themselves it was a trade deal with annoying political bits to put up with that could be contained, the continentals saw it as politics with additional trade. Huge generalisation I know, and doubtless some on each side did see it the other way round too, but the crunch was decades in the making.
Both sides in 2016 utterly misread the whole situation. The Brits underestimated the others desire not to row back on their project, the 27 just didn’t believe the Brits would ever really vote to leave.
Neither did the British government. but because we had not given the population a buy-in on the project via any kind of referendum (including one that was sidestepped) they had no idea how many people didn't like the status quo.
Agreed. Dodging a referendum on Lisbon was a colossal screw up.
as was rebadging the failed EU constitution and trying again
but as has been pointed out Germany has no intention or capability to police Europe. It freeloads off the US and needs the apperance of the EU to leverage its position. It has now avoidably put itself in the position where iit will have to make major revisions to its position. Yugoslavia and Ukraine were acts forced on Germany by others, Brexit is entirely self inflicted.
It's not about policing but defending Europe. Germany's Army is of comparable size to the UK's. Admittedly it can and will do more in the future, but allegations of "freeloading" are risible. The US are spending above 4% of GDP not to defend Europe but on nonsense like Iraq and similar, which then creates other problems we have to deal with. That's no contribution to European security.
The Bundeswehr doesnt have any useful capacity, van der Leyen screwed it up totally. Submarines that cant sail, planes that cant fly for lack of spare parts, armour that rusts in its garages. Militarily Germany is not a reliable partner .
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Even if an alternative arrangement can be specified and agreed to in 30 days, we will only have about 14 months to implement it. I suspect that the EU will insist on a backstop, just in case.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
We should sell him Northern Ireland. We'd be rid of the sectarian problems, and the backstop issue would be solved.
We would get a few bob for it and he'd never notice the difference.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
We should sell him Northern Ireland. We'd be rid of the sectarian problems, and the backstop issue would be solved.
We would get a few bob for it and he'd never notice the difference.
What's not to like?
and it would piss off the EU monumentally. Good deal.
Correct. Mr. Johnson has indeed said what Shankar Singham's AAC prompted him to say. Do you really believe that him saying it makes these things come true?
You are oddly well informed on British politics. Impressive. May we know why, approximately? - there is no obligation to identify yourself with detail, if you prefer not to.
Being half way informed on British politics seems neither odd nor impressive to me, I guess I was just born curious. And, of course, there's no obligation to identify oneselves with detail, "Mr. Byronic" (or "Mr. Tremayne?")
Colour me a tiny bit skeptical as to whether you are really Matthias from Hamburg, an average German guy who just happens to be wandering onto a British political blog. But, also, colour me intrigued. Subterfuge is fun.
Also, ich bin nicht er.
Shocking to think that someone might create a sock puppet persona. Of course some expend more effort on this than others.
I assume you are just posting the tweet without actually knowing how any of this works. Or do you? Do you export? Can you tell me what I do if I'm taking stuff over the border that I then bring back for instance, something I used to do and I can think of many major commercial organisations that have to do that on a grand scale. Just because someone drops words like trusted trader, mobile checks doesn't mean it will work. Nobody has actually come up with an alternative. At least nobody who actually does it for real and is not a politician who crosses his/her fingers.
Just use one of the back roads round Aughnacloy or Clones same as everyone else.
Not sure the Rolling Stones tour buses and lorries will manage that
youre bribing the wrong people :-)
It is a good job they don't have a Grand Prix in Ireland. The carnets for that must be interesting, particularly for stuff they bring in which is needed yesterday. Still I guess they are geared up for it, for all the non EU countries visited..
Family members are, or have been involved with this. It required a great deal of preparation and planning for eventualities. I understand that there is some consideration being given to shifting part at any rate of the F1 operation, especially where 'things' are involved, to France.
Interesting, but they still must have the issue for non EU countries anyway.
For me this is the one of the biggest issues. As I have mentioned here before I was involved (ran) a pre sales bid in Cyprus where we had a head to head competition for a contract. The bid alone was a 3 month build resulting in a 3 week demo. We needed a specific bit of equipment flown in and it got held up in customs. I know, because I was calling customs everyday, that our competitor had the same issue. This was pre Cyprus being in the EU and the current set up. The build was a nightmare and a key part was completed only hours before the deadline.
If we had the same issue and we were UK based and outside of the EU and our competitor in the EU we would have lost the bid because of the delay. Both bidders were very large US multi-nationals with European HO in the UK. The choice would be move to the EU or lose multi million pound contracts.
If your still on HYUFD how would you solve that issue?
Make sure you prepare in advance and have all the kit you need?
She and other EU leaders should have given more to the UK, just to make sure Brexit could never happen. A fudge back then would have saved enormous grief now.
A proposed emergency brake on migration, in extremis, would surely have been enough.
Surprisingly you misunderstand the political dynamics. Nothing would have been enough, because it would have been taken as proof that threatening to leave wins you concessions because they really do 'need us more than we need them'. Brexiteers would have said, "If they gave us x just because of the prospect of a vote, just think what they'd offer if we actually voted to leave." In many ways this logic of showing them we're serious is what still drives Boris Johnson's negotiating tactics.
And you consistent underestimate the good sense of the British voters
"Your message on PB horrifies me. Of course there is no possible connection between Byronic and SeanT. If you suggest such a thing anywhere it will be the end of our beautiful friendship! For Christ's sake lay off the idea of Byronic = SeanT. Just shut up about Byronic. Fuck you, Evelyn Waugh SeanT."
BBC News at 10 and ITV news leading on the Boris and Merkel meeting.
Ignoring the policy and backstop or any potential alternative completely there is a real body language change between Boris and May. When May met Merkel Merkel was clearly the stronger and more confident party, with May more hunched and tentative and reserved, however today Boris looked confident and strong and spoke straight to camera and met Merkel on at least equal terms if not more
Just pointing out that countries right across the continent are spending less on their military as a proportion of GDP than at any point in history, and that we are nearly entirely at peace. As a continent, Governments, including our own, rightly see the armed forces as a waste of money, which is why the forces have been cut back so much during austerity by the Tories.
Russia and China are spending considerarbly more in real terms because their economies have been growing very nicely in recent decades. The GDP comparison is deeply misleading, you should look at what they've got and what they are building.
Sure, some parts of the world are not at the stage of social development as Europe, so may well feel a degree of military threat. In practice these tend to be autocratic countries, and the army is mostly a menace to their own people, as we see at the moment in Shenzen and the implicit threats to Hong Kong. Across most of the world this is true, As democracy has spread through Africa and Latin America, military expenditure has dropped there too.
A lot of Western countries, notably the USA and UK, have traditionally been suspicious of large standing armies as instruments of tyranny. We had a substantial navy that helped us avoid that European disease of militarism.
I think it’s almost solely the US and U.K. with the suspicion of standing armies you mention. It’s why we don’t give our police guns and why the US arms its citizens
BBC News at 10 and ITV news leading on the Boris and Merkel language.
Ignoring the policy and backstop or any potential alternative copletely there is a real body language change between Boris and May. When May met Merkel Merkel was clearly the stronger and more confident party, with May more hunched and reserved, however today Boris looked confident and strong and spoke straight to camera and met Merkel on at least equal terms if not more
Even though he is pursuing a policy that you vehemently disagree with. You still seem to revere him. Very strange. Quite admire Corbyn do you?
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
Funny how the backstop couldn't be replaced, there were no alternatives, it was absolutely fundamentally required . . . only to then say lets spend the next 30 days discussing its replacement.
Serious grown up politics entering the discussion. Well done Boris!
And interesting that it is Merkel - not Tusk or Varadkar - that was the one to go to, in order to make progress. The sheriff is calling the shots now, BMW no doubt have been in touch
Yes and Merkel suggesting an alternative to the backstop could be found within 30 days
This morning on BBC we had 2 german journalists trailing the story that a compromise on the backstop was likely.
If the germans cant agree amongst themselves then why shouldnt we ask the same questions
Of course you can continue asking the same questions, regardless of agreement between German journalists with each other or with the German government. What is needed now are answers to questions. Mr. Johnson has admitted today that the ball is in fact now in the UK's court. That's progress, however infinitesimally small.
That the UK is leaving the EU is probably the greatest failure of German foreign policy since 1945.
The manner of the departure simply accentuates the failure.
It’s a greater failure of British foreign policy. It is bad for Germany, but worse for us, and moreover it is our fault and not theirs.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
We should sell him Northern Ireland. We'd be rid of the sectarian problems, and the backstop issue would be solved.
We would get a few bob for it and he'd never notice the difference.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
We should sell him Northern Ireland. We'd be rid of the sectarian problems, and the backstop issue would be solved.
We would get a few bob for it and he'd never notice the difference.
What's not to like?
The Democrats might be less keen
The people of Northern Ireland might be less keen!
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to buy other countries' territories. Bizarre.
Johnson has now set himself up to fail on two fronts: 1. Finding an alternative to the backstop. 2. Delivering a pain-free No Deal Brexit. I know everything has changed in politics, but this doesn’t look smart. What am I missing?
Trump should offer to buy Brexit Britain, since Denmark refused to sell Greenland. Once Johnson et al have finished with it, he will be able to get it at fire sale prices.
BBC News at 10 and ITV news leading on the Boris and Merkel language.
Ignoring the policy and backstop or any potential alternative copletely there is a real body language change between Boris and May. When May met Merkel Merkel was clearly the stronger and more confident party, with May more hunched and reserved, however today Boris looked confident and strong and spoke straight to camera and met Merkel on at least equal terms if not more
Even though he is pursuing a policy that you vehemently disagree with. You still seem to revere him. Very strange. Quite admire Corbyn do you?
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to but other countries' territories. Bizarre.
My guess, having actually been to Greenland - unlike anyone else on here - is that they would accept Trump’s offer in a heartbeat, if they could get American citizenship, and become a special territory of the USA.
The Greenlandic spokespeople usually quoted on this tend to be Danish born. And Denmark is utterly desperate to hang on to Greenland, hence the enormous subsidies they pay.
Danes feel their smug, flat little country lacks any drama or grandeur. They are right. Greenland is their emotionally satisfying frontier, full of poetry.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to but other countries' territories. Bizarre.
My guess, having actually been to Greenland - unlike anyone else on here -
Merkel seemed to be trolling Johnson with her 30 days. But Johnson: "Wir schaffen das"! Meanwhile the Europeans seem to be twigging the fact that the backstop "insurance policy" is nothing of the kind if there is no deal.
Just pointing out that countries right across the continent are spending less on their military as a proportion of GDP than at any point in history, and that we are nearly entirely at peace. As a continent, Governments, including our own, rightly see the armed forces as a waste of money, which is why the forces have been cut back so much during austerity by the Tories.
Russia and China are spending considerarbly more in real terms because their economies have been growing very nicely in recent decades. The GDP comparison is deeply misleading, you should look at what they've got and what they are building.
Sure, some parts of the world are not at the stage of social development as Europe, so may well feel a degree of military threat. In practice these tend to be autocratic countries, and the army is mostly a menace to their own people, as we see at the moment in Shenzen and the implicit threats to Hong Kong. Across most of the world this is true, As democracy has spread through Africa and Latin America, military expenditure has dropped there too.
A lot of Western countries, notably the USA and UK, have traditionally been suspicious of large standing armies as instruments of tyranny. We had a substantial navy that helped us avoid that European disease of militarism.
I think it’s almost solely the US and U.K. with the suspicion of standing armies you mention. It’s why we don’t give our police guns and why the US arms its citizens
The UK does not have a tradition of suspicion of large standing armies. We've had quite a few of them, lots of conscription, and the only reason why the current one is so small is because of money.
As a rough rule of thumb, Americans are individualists that defends against its Government (so Posse Comitatus rules, states rights, a one-page census form, a constitution with "we the people") but trusts industry (so weaker data protection rules, you can sell blood), but Brits are societal and want a strong Government to act for it (so television licenses, compulsory seatbelts, NHS, a census form on several pages, and constant, constant complaining) but distrust industry (so data protection rules are strict, central blood and organ, um, organisation). Although to be fair things are changing rapidly and I see your point, it wasn't that way in the past
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to buy other countries' territories. Bizarre.
I don’t have issue with it in principle. Of course it’s a little unusual in the modern era, but if - for example - the US were to pay us for exclusive use of say the Chagas Islands I’d be good with that.
Similarly we were right to return the New Territories to China when our lease expired
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to but other countries' territories. Bizarre.
My guess, having actually been to Greenland - unlike anyone else on here - is that they would accept Trump’s offer in a heartbeat, if they could get American citizenship, and become a special territory of the USA.
The Greenlandic spokespeople usually quoted on this tend to be Danish born. And Denmark is utterly desperate to hang on to Greenland, hence the enormous subsidies they pay.
Danes feel their smug, flat little country lacks any drama or grandeur. They are right. Greenland is their emotionally satisfying frontier, full of poetry.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to buy other countries' territories. Bizarre.
I don’t have issue with it in principle. Of course it’s a little unusual in the modern era, but if - for example - the US were to pay us for exclusive use of say the Chagos Islands I’d be good with that.
What about the people who used to live there were ethnically cleansed from there?
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to but other countries' territories. Bizarre.
My guess, having actually been to Greenland - unlike anyone else on here - is that they would accept Trump’s offer in a heartbeat, if they could get American citizenship, and become a special territory of the USA.
The Greenlandic spokespeople usually quoted on this tend to be Danish born. And Denmark is utterly desperate to hang on to Greenland, hence the enormous subsidies they pay.
Danes feel their smug, flat little country lacks any drama or grandeur. They are right. Greenland is their emotionally satisfying frontier, full of poetry.
Johnson has now set himself up to fail on two fronts: 1. Finding an alternative to the backstop. 2. Delivering a pain-free No Deal Brexit. I know everything has changed in politics, but this doesn’t look smart. What am I missing?
No, Boris has committed to find an alternative to the backstop showing he is doing everything he can to get the only Deal to get a majority through Parliament ie the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as per the Brady Amendment, agreed with the EU.
If the EU refuses to help then he can show floating voters he pursued No Deal only as a last resort to deliver Brexit, not as his first choice (though Merkel seemed positive something could be done today)
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to buy other countries' territories. Bizarre.
I don’t have issue with it in principle. Of course it’s a little unusual in the modern era, but if - for example - the US were to pay us for exclusive use of say the Chagas Islands I’d be good with that.
Similarly we were right to return the New Territories to China when our lease expired
Should we sell Gibraltar to Spain? Or the Falklands to Argentina?
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to but other countries' territories. Bizarre.
My guess, having actually been to Greenland - unlike anyone else on here - is that they would accept Trump’s offer in a heartbeat, if they could get American citizenship, and become a special territory of the USA.
The Greenlandic spokespeople usually quoted on this tend to be Danish born. And Denmark is utterly desperate to hang on to Greenland, hence the enormous subsidies they pay.
Danes feel their smug, flat little country lacks any drama or grandeur. They are right. Greenland is their emotionally satisfying frontier, full of poetry.
"My guess..."
Say no more.
Well, I have been there. I’m sorry you haven’t. It is magnificent. Go.
BBC News at 10 and ITV news leading on the Boris and Merkel language.
Ignoring the policy and backstop or any potential alternative copletely there is a real body language change between Boris and May. When May met Merkel Merkel was clearly the stronger and more confident party, with May more hunched and reserved, however today Boris looked confident and strong and spoke straight to camera and met Merkel on at least equal terms if not more
Even though he is pursuing a policy that you vehemently disagree with. You still seem to revere him. Very strange. Quite admire Corbyn do you?
No, I back Brexit Deal or No Deal.
Seriously though there are only 3 UK PMs in my lifetime who have genuinely looked like world leaders and confident on the world stage, Thatcher, Blair and now Boris, with maybe Cameron halfway there. Boris is making his mark already
Johnson has now set himself up to fail on two fronts: 1. Finding an alternative to the backstop. 2. Delivering a pain-free No Deal Brexit. I know everything has changed in politics, but this doesn’t look smart. What am I missing?
No, Boris has committed to find an alternative to the backstop showing he is doing everything he can to get the only Deal to get a majority through Parliament ie the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as per the Brady Amendment, agreed with the EU.
If the EU refuses to help then he can show floating voters he pursued No Deal only as a last resort to deliver Brexit, not as his first choice (though Merkel seemed positive something could be done today)
He's got 30 days to do his homework for Ms Merkel. Let's hope for top marks!
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to buy other countries' territories. Bizarre.
I don’t have issue with it in principle. Of course it’s a little unusual in the modern era, but if - for example - the US were to pay us for exclusive use of say the Chagas Islands I’d be good with that.
Similarly we were right to return the New Territories to China when our lease expired
It's not similarly at all. The lease expired. The idea of buying parts of countries is more than a little unusual. It is bizarre. As the whole planet apart from D Trump (and you?) seems to appreciate.
I believe Trump is, now, demonstrably and obviously demented.
Seriously on the recent tropic of whether Trump will be the next Republican candidate for presidency. Trump might not stand, not because of impeachment or a heart attack, but will be led out of the White House by men in white coats
He's right, they can. AND THEY ARE EXACTLY WHAT IS ENVISAGED IN THE WA/PD*.
The point is that - realistically - the technology is going to take two to three years (not 14 months) to implement. The Backstop exists to bridge any gap.
The solution is a simple one: extend the transition period.
* This assumes there is no FTA which negates the need for border checks
I believe Trump is, now, demonstrably and obviously demented.
Seriously on the recent tropic of whether Trump will be the next Republican candidate for presidency. Trump might not stand, not because of impeachment or a heart attack, but will be led out of the White House by men in white coats
Yes. That is very possible. Literally. His ex-aide was saying the same on BBC.
Just pointing out that countries right across the continent are spending less on their military as a proportion of GDP than at any point in history, and that we are nearly entirely at peace. As a continent, Governments, including our own, rightly see the armed forces as a waste of money, which is why the forces have been cut back so much during austerity by the Tories.
Russia and China are spending considerarbly more in real terms because their economies have been growing very nicely in recent decades. The GDP comparison is deeply misleading, you should look at what they've got and what they are building.
Sure, some parts of the world are not at the stage of social development as Europe, so may well feel a degree of military threat. In practice these tend to be autocratic countries, and the army is mostly a menace to their own people, as we see at the moment in Shenzen and the implicit threats to Hong Kong. Across most of the world this is true, As democracy has spread through Africa and Latin America, military expenditure has dropped there too.
A lot of Western countries, notably the USA and UK, have traditionally been suspicious of large standing armies as instruments of tyranny. We had a substantial navy that helped us avoid that European disease of militarism.
I think it’s almost solely the US and U.K. with the suspicion of standing armies you mention. It’s why we don’t give our police guns and why the US arms its citizens
The UK does not have a tradition of suspicion of large standing armies. We've had quite a few of them, lots of conscription, and the only reason why the current one is so small is because of money.
As a rough rule of thumb, Americans are individualists that defends against its Government (so Posse Comitatus rules, states rights, a one-page census form, a constitution with "we the people") but trusts industry (so weaker data protection rules, you can sell blood), but Brits are societal and want a strong Government to act for it (so television licenses, compulsory seatbelts, NHS, a census form on several pages, and constant, constant complaining) but distrust industry (so data protection rules are strict, central blood and organ, um, organisation). Although to be fair things are changing rapidly and I see your point, it wasn't that way in the past
Disagree - post the civil war we’ve only had large armies during times of war (which were frequent...) - standing armies were much smaller.
Americans have a fear of State tyranny (the Crown). Brits basically want to be left alone (“my home is my castle”)
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to but other countries' territories. Bizarre.
My guess, having actually been to Greenland - unlike anyone else on here -
BBC News at 10 and ITV news leading on the Boris and Merkel language.
Ignoring the policy and backstop or any potential alternative copletely there is a real body language change between Boris and May. When May met Merkel Merkel was clearly the stronger and more confident party, with May more hunched and reserved, however today Boris looked confident and strong and spoke straight to camera and met Merkel on at least equal terms if not more
Even though he is pursuing a policy that you vehemently disagree with. You still seem to revere him. Very strange. Quite admire Corbyn do you?
No, I back Brexit Deal or No Deal.
Seriously though there are only 3 UK PMs in my lifetime who have genuinely looked like world leaders and confident on the world stage, Thatcher, Blair and now Boris, with maybe Cameron halfway there. Boris is making his mark already
Boris does not look like a world leader and he is pursuing a policy that you vehemently disagree with to boot. Why do you indulge him so?
Johnson has now set himself up to fail on two fronts: 1. Finding an alternative to the backstop. 2. Delivering a pain-free No Deal Brexit. I know everything has changed in politics, but this doesn’t look smart. What am I missing?
No, Boris has committed to find an alternative to the backstop showing he is doing everything he can to get the only Deal to get a majority through Parliament ie the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop as per the Brady Amendment, agreed with the EU.
If the EU refuses to help then he can show floating voters he pursued No Deal only as a last resort to deliver Brexit, not as his first choice (though Merkel seemed positive something could be done today)
Bless you. Merkel played Johnson today while doing the crossword and feeding the cat. His credulous response shows how easy it was. She gave him a deadline. He said thank-you.
Amusingly, when Angela Merkel told President Trump that Germany had plans to increase defence spending significantly, he was cross. He didn't want Germany using the money to hire soldiers, he wanted them to buy US kit.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to but other countries' territories. Bizarre.
My guess, having actually been to Greenland - unlike anyone else on here - is that they would accept Trump’s offer in a heartbeat, if they could get American citizenship, and become a special territory of the USA.
The Greenlandic spokespeople usually quoted on this tend to be Danish born. And Denmark is utterly desperate to hang on to Greenland, hence the enormous subsidies they pay.
Danes feel their smug, flat little country lacks any drama or grandeur. They are right. Greenland is their emotionally satisfying frontier, full of poetry.
"My guess..."
Say no more.
Well, I have been there. I’m sorry you haven’t. It is magnificent. Go.
Having been there? So what? I can't fly an aeroplane but know that I prefer first class to economy if I fly on commercial airlines.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to buy other countries' territories. Bizarre.
I don’t have issue with it in principle. Of course it’s a little unusual in the modern era, but if - for example - the US were to pay us for exclusive use of say the Chagas Islands I’d be good with that.
Similarly we were right to return the New Territories to China when our lease expired
Should we sell Gibraltar to Spain? Or the Falklands to Argentina?
I wouldn’t. But that’s because I don’t think you can put a price on the right to self-determination.
But that’s not an argument in principle: it’s like the conversation between GBS and the London society hostess
Trump should offer to buy Brexit Britain, since Denmark refused to sell Greenland. Once Johnson et al have finished with it, he will be able to get it at fire sale prices.
He should offer to buy the Falklands. Then Johnson could have his Falklands Moment by telling him to get stuffed but offering him the Isle of Lewis where his mother was born instead.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to buy other countries' territories. Bizarre.
I don’t have issue with it in principle. Of course it’s a little unusual in the modern era, but if - for example - the US were to pay us for exclusive use of say the Chagas Islands I’d be good with that.
Similarly we were right to return the New Territories to China when our lease expired
It's not similarly at all. The lease expired. The idea of buying parts of countries is more than a little unusual. It is bizarre. As the whole planet apart from D Trump (and you?) seems to appreciate.
The fact that the lease existed in the first place establishes the principle that financial transactions for territory might be appropriate in some circumstances
I’ve not been the Greenland but I suspect if you offered the inhabitants the chance to become US citizens they would go for it
An independent Scotland could perhaps extricate itself from looming bankruptcy by offering itself for sale.
They've done that once already when they sold themselves to England.
Ho, impecunious, fuckwitted aristos did that, comrade.
And after they had done it they were not impecunious. So perhaps they were not fuckwitted. Although they were aristos...
Fair point, though their fuckwittery had impoverished many of them in the first place. You should never underestimate the low cunning of a posho when confronted with the possibility of being denied clean linen and a life of indolence.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to but other countries' territories. Bizarre.
My guess, having actually been to Greenland - unlike anyone else on here -
Hah! But have you been to Belfast? ON A PLANE!!
I win! (looks smug)
Indeed.
AAMOF I have been to Belfast in a CPV. Much cooler than a plane sozza.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to buy other countries' territories. Bizarre.
I don’t have issue with it in principle. Of course it’s a little unusual in the modern era, but if - for example - the US were to pay us for exclusive use of say the Chagas Islands I’d be good with that.
Similarly we were right to return the New Territories to China when our lease expired
It's not similarly at all. The lease expired. The idea of buying parts of countries is more than a little unusual. It is bizarre. As the whole planet apart from D Trump (and you?) seems to appreciate.
The fact that the lease existed in the first place establishes the principle that financial transactions for territory might be appropriate in some circumstances
I’ve not been the Greenland but I suspect if you offered the inhabitants the chance to become US citizens they would go for it
I suppose most Brexiters yearn for the 19th century so I shouldn't be surprised at your attitude.
Talking of vast swathes of abhorrent wilderness, e.g. the Labour party's electoral prospects under Jez Corbyn, have any pb-ers been to Greenland?
I'm flying there next Monday for a few days. Fulfilling a lifetime ambition. I hear the locals allow gentleman visitors to share their Greenlandic wives, however as the wives are generally smeared with seal-fat, this is a dubious boon.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to buy other countries' territories. Bizarre.
I don’t have issue with it in principle. Of course it’s a little unusual in the modern era, but if - for example - the US were to pay us for exclusive use of say the Chagas Islands I’d be good with that.
Similarly we were right to return the New Territories to China when our lease expired
It's not similarly at all. The lease expired. The idea of buying parts of countries is more than a little unusual. It is bizarre. As the whole planet apart from D Trump (and you?) seems to appreciate.
The fact that the lease existed in the first place establishes the principle that financial transactions for territory might be appropriate in some circumstances
I’ve not been the Greenland but I suspect if you offered the inhabitants the chance to become US citizens they would go for it
I suppose most Brexiters yearn for the 19th century so I shouldn't be surprised at your attitude.
Just pointing out that countries right across the continent are spending less on their military as a proportion of GDP than at any point in history, and that we are nearly entirely at peace. As a continent, Governments, including our own, rightly see the armed forces as a waste of money, which is why the forces have been cut back so much during austerity by the Tories.
Russia and China are spending considerarbly more in real terms because their economies have been growing very nicely in recent decades. The GDP comparison is deeply misleading, you should look at what they've got and what they are building.
Sure, some parts of the world are no
I think it’s almost solely the US and U.K. with the suspicion of standing armies you mention. It’s why we don’t give our police guns and why the US arms its citizens
The UK does not have a tradition of suspicion of large standing armies. We've had quite a few of them, lots of conscription, and the only reason why the current one is so small is because of money.
As a rough rule of thumb, Americans are individualists that defends against its Government (so Posse Comitatus rules, states rights, a one-page census form, a constitution with "we the people") but trusts industry (so weaker data protection rules, you can sell blood), but Brits are societal and want a strong Government to act for it (so television licenses, compulsory seatbelts, NHS, a census form on several pages, and constant, constant complaining) but distrust industry (so data protection rules are strict, central blood and organ, um, organisation). Although to be fair things are changing rapidly and I see your point, it wasn't that way in the past
Disagree - post the civil war we’ve only had large armies during times of war (which were frequent...) - standing armies were much smaller.
Americans have a fear of State tyranny (the Crown). Brits basically want to be left alone (“my home is my castle”)
Apart from the American Civil War and 1941 onwards, the USA has had a very small military. Despite years of tension, the British Army was a fraction of the size of continental armies in 1914. Indeed I think the Serbs fielded a bigger army. We did have the navy, and a long history of press gangs, but it was a volunteer force apart from 1916-18 and 1939-1962.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to buy other countries' territories. Bizarre.
I don’t have issue with it in principle. Of course it’s a little unusual in the modern era, but if - for example - the US were to pay us for exclusive use of say the Chagas Islands I’d be good with that.
Similarly we were right to return the New Territories to China when our lease expired
It's not similarly at all. The lease expired. The idea of buying parts of countries is more than a little unusual. It is bizarre. As the whole planet apart from D Trump (and you?) seems to appreciate.
The fact that the lease existed in the first place establishes the principle that financial transactions for territory might be appropriate in some circumstances
I’ve not been the Greenland but I suspect if you offered the inhabitants the chance to become US citizens they would go for it
I suppose most Brexiters yearn for the 19th century so I shouldn't be surprised at your attitude.
I just wonder what Trump would have paid for Greenland. Alaska was bought for only $120 million or so in today's money (roughly 2 cents per acre) which is incredible.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Access to the Arctic is priceless.
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
But in general you agree with countries trying to buy other countries' territories. Bizarre.
I don’t have issue with it in principle. Of course it’s a little unusual in the modern era, but if - for example - the US were to pay us for exclusive use of say the Chagas Islands I’d be good with that.
Similarly we were right to return the New Territories to China when our lease expired
It's not similarly at all. The lease expired. The idea of buying parts of countries is more than a little unusual. It is bizarre. As the whole planet apart from D Trump (and you?) seems to appreciate.
The fact that the lease existed in the first place establishes the principle that financial transactions for territory might be appropriate in some circumstances
I’ve not been the Greenland but I suspect if you offered the inhabitants the chance to become US citizens they would go for it
I suppose most Brexiters yearn for the 19th century so I shouldn't be surprised at your attitude.
Serfs can be bought and sold, so why not pieces of land...
He's right, they can. AND THEY ARE EXACTLY WHAT IS ENVISAGED IN THE WA/PD*.
The point is that - realistically - the technology is going to take two to three years (not 14 months) to implement. The Backstop exists to bridge any gap.
The solution is a simple one: extend the transition period.
* This assumes there is no FTA which negates the need for border checks
There have been rumours the Boris camp could extend the transition period to do precisely that
Funny how the backstop couldn't be replaced, there were no alternatives, it was absolutely fundamentally required . . . only to then say lets spend the next 30 days discussing its replacement.
Serious grown up politics entering the discussion. Well done Boris!
And interesting that it is Merkel - not Tusk or Varadkar - that was the one to go to, in order to make progress. The sheriff is calling the shots now, BMW no doubt have been in touch
Yes and Merkel suggesting an alternative to the backstop could be found within 30 days
Comments
fair points
but as has been pointed out Germany has no intention or capability to police Europe. It freeloads off the US and needs the apperance of the EU to leverage its position. It has now avoidably put itself in the position where iit will have to make major revisions to its position. Yugoslavia and Ukraine were acts forced on Germany by others, Brexit is entirely self inflicted.
It's not about policing but defending Europe. Germany's Army is of comparable size to the UK's.
Admittedly it can and will do more in the future, but allegations of "freeloading" are risible.
The US are spending above 4% of GDP not to defend Europe but on nonsense like Iraq and similar, which then creates other problems we have to deal with.
That's no contribution to European security.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
It is his 'optimism' that is in stark contrast with the media and those trying to frustrate brexit
Five were against. One neutral.
https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2019/08/20/by-election-news-round-up-2/
but as has been pointed out Germany has no intention or capability to police Europe. It freeloads off the US and needs the apperance of the EU to leverage its position. It has now avoidably put itself in the position where iit will have to make major revisions to its position. Yugoslavia and Ukraine were acts forced on Germany by others, Brexit is entirely self inflicted.
It's not about policing but defending Europe. Germany's Army is of comparable size to the UK's.
Admittedly it can and will do more in the future, but allegations of "freeloading" are risible.
The US are spending above 4% of GDP not to defend Europe but on nonsense like Iraq and similar, which then creates other problems we have to deal with.
That's no contribution to European security.
The Bundeswehr doesnt have any useful capacity, van der Leyen screwed it up totally. Submarines that cant sail, planes that cant fly for lack of spare parts, armour that rusts in its garages. Militarily Germany is not a reliable partner .
I guess he'll be swamped with postal bets from north of the border. Probably the odd stone tablet too.
Joke, obviously - I know you have all the trappings of modernity. Quite why you deep fry them though escapes me.
Alaska is 586,000 square miles and Greenland is 836,000 square miles so about 140% of Alaska.
If I was Denmark, what would I accept? 100 billion kroner?
Has there ever been a more ridiculous POTUS
The world needs to see him gone, it would be a much better place
didnt end well
We would get a few bob for it and he'd never notice the difference.
What's not to like?
Britain occupied Iceland 1940-41, and USA took over 1941 to 1945. Iceland officially declared independence from Denmark in 1944.
(Not really)
Ignoring the policy and backstop or any potential alternative completely there is a real body language change between Boris and May. When May met Merkel Merkel was clearly the stronger and more confident party, with May more hunched and tentative and reserved, however today Boris looked confident and strong and spoke straight to camera and met Merkel on at least equal terms if not more
But of course Denmark couldn’t say that so came up with some PC nonsense instead
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/21/trump-press-conference-greenland-jewish-democrats?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I believe Trump is, now, demonstrably and obviously demented.
1. Finding an alternative to the backstop.
2. Delivering a pain-free No Deal Brexit.
I know everything has changed in politics, but this doesn’t look smart. What am I missing?
The Greenlandic spokespeople usually quoted on this tend to be Danish born. And Denmark is utterly desperate to hang on to Greenland, hence the enormous subsidies they pay.
Danes feel their smug, flat little country lacks any drama or grandeur. They are right. Greenland is their emotionally satisfying frontier, full of poetry.
Meanwhile the Europeans seem to be twigging the fact that the backstop "insurance policy" is nothing of the kind if there is no deal.
As a rough rule of thumb, Americans are individualists that defends against its Government (so Posse Comitatus rules, states rights, a one-page census form, a constitution with "we the people") but trusts industry (so weaker data protection rules, you can sell blood), but Brits are societal and want a strong Government to act for it (so television licenses, compulsory seatbelts, NHS, a census form on several pages, and constant, constant complaining) but distrust industry (so data protection rules are strict, central blood and organ, um, organisation). Although to be fair things are changing rapidly and I see your point, it wasn't that way in the past
Similarly we were right to return the New Territories to China when our lease expired
Say no more.
If the EU refuses to help then he can show floating voters he pursued No Deal only as a last resort to deliver Brexit, not as his first choice (though Merkel seemed positive something could be done today)
Seriously though there are only 3 UK PMs in my lifetime who have genuinely looked like world leaders and confident on the world stage, Thatcher, Blair and now Boris, with maybe Cameron halfway there. Boris is making his mark already
The point is that - realistically - the technology is going to take two to three years (not 14 months) to implement. The Backstop exists to bridge any gap.
The solution is a simple one: extend the transition period.
* This assumes there is no FTA which negates the need for border checks
Americans have a fear of State tyranny (the Crown). Brits basically want to be left alone (“my home is my castle”)
I win! (looks smug)
But that’s not an argument in principle: it’s like the conversation between GBS and the London society hostess
My entry would be Saudi Arabia. I used to live there! (Until I was 5 years old...)
I’ve not been the Greenland but I suspect if you offered the inhabitants the chance to become US citizens they would go for it
Fair point, though their fuckwittery had impoverished many of them in the first place. You should never underestimate the low cunning of a posho when confronted with the possibility of being denied clean linen and a life of indolence.
AAMOF I have been to Belfast in a CPV. Much cooler than a plane sozza.
The photos tonight in contrast to May's terrified social phobia look at every event are quite stark.