Tom Watson appeals to our better nature with an "aim high" strategy. In his next tweet, though he's ranting about the Tories being a "sinister extremist sect".
This is a misunderstanding of the nature of the EU. The EU is an innovation, that does not fit into the Westphalian model of an independent state, nor of an empire of coercive military occupation. A state occupies territory, possesses a monopoly on violence, and extends roughly equal democratic* rights to the majority of its inhabitants. And empire occupies multiple territories, possesses a monopoly on violence within those territories but does not extend equal democratic rights between its territories. Thus an imperial capital could have universal suffrage but not have democracy within its colonies. Or the democracy in a colony could extend to domestic matters but not cover foreign policy, which is exclusively controlled by the electorate in the home country. In this view, the UK can't be regarded imperial wrt Scotland, since Scotland elects to the UK parliament in essentially an equal way to the rest of the UK. However, the UK can be regarded as imperial wrt the Falklands. Note that the description of imperial does not imply coercion, but coercion is often a feature.
So, onto the EU. The EU has no central police force, and no army. If an "EU" army formed, it wouldn't involve all members. There is no way at all that the EU can be described as holding a monopoly on violence. Each state retains that monopoly. The EU cannot be considered a state, and cannot be considered an empire. Furthermore, the EU does extend its democratic rights equally. The primary of these rights is the election of MEPs to the parliament, which is more-or-less weighted by population and elected on a proportional basis within each region. Other rights, eg the appointment of commissioners, are taken by the governments of member states. This is equal in a different way, not by population but by membership.
Some argue the EU exhibits empire-like behaviour eg compelling third countries to accept terms on commercial deals that favour it over the interests of those third countries. This is something that does happen, but isn't imperial. A helpful analogy here is the US. The US was certainly imperial in its treatment of unincorporated territories and the native tribes and nations that lived there. The US isn't imperial in seeking favourable trade deals with Mexico. The exercise of soft power & the politics of external influence are too broad to be defined as imperial, since they are practised by state and non-state actors alike.
In short, the EU is neither state nor empire. It's something else. And whether one regards that as angelic or demonic or something in between is ones own business, but it's never helpful to argue from a position of ignorance about a word's meaning. If anyone thinks they have a better idea of "imperial" please try to explain that and show how it applies to the EU. But I suspect that, sadly, a lot of the attempts to label the EU so are borne not of insight or analysis, but of mischief or stupidity.
That's the point of the EU Army. LEAVE is fundamentally a pro-American campaign, whereas REMAIN is fundamentally pro-European. If you want to be subservient to a man who can be bought with the girly favours of Russian oilgarchs, bully to you.
It was the British and Americans who liberated western Europe in WW2 from the last pan European army headed by one Adolf Hitler.
A European army running alongside NATO may work well, a European army as a rival to NATO will not
Huh ? Who started pushing the Nazis back from December 1941 onwards. The allies landed in France in June 1944 !
Which does not change the point France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and ultimately west Germany itself ie western Europe were all liberated by the Allies not the Russians exactly as I said.
Russia was one of the Allies.
Russia did not liberate western Europe, not one Russian soldier was involved in freeing France, the Benelux nations, Italy, Scandinavia etc from Nazi rule, only American, British and Commonwealth nations were
Well they were involved indirectly, by defeating so many German divisions on the Eastern Front - but then of course were it not for Britain still being in the war in 1941 there would have been more German divisions to defeat the Soviets. It was an alliance and a joint victory.
What was not joint was the attitude and behaviour towards the countries that had been occupied by the Nazis - which was Nabavi's point.
I wonder if Remainer HYUFD is even aware of Operation Bagration in summer 1944?
That's the point of the EU Army. LEAVE is fundamentally a pro-American campaign, whereas REMAIN is fundamentally pro-European. If you want to be subservient to a man who can be bought with the girly favours of Russian oilgarchs, bully to you.
It was the British and Americans who liberated western Europe in WW2 from the last pan European army headed by one Adolf Hitler.
A European army running alongside NATO may work well, a European army as a rival to NATO will not
Huh ? Who started pushing the Nazis back from December 1941 onwards. The allies landed in France in June 1944 !
Which does not change the point France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and ultimately west Germany itself ie western Europe were all liberated by the Allies not the Russians exactly as I said.
Russia was one of the Allies.
Russia did not liberate western Europe, not one Russian soldier was involved in freeing France, the Benelux nations, Italy, Scandinavia etc from Nazi rule, only American, British and Commonwealth nations were
Well they were involved indirectly, by defeating so many German divisions on the Eastern Front - but then of course were it not for Britain still being in the war in 1941 there would have been more German divisions to defeat the Soviets. It was an alliance and a joint victory.
What was not joint was the attitude and behaviour towards the countries that had been occupied by the Nazis - which was Nabavi's point.
Putin is no Stalin though, he is a right wing ethno-nationalist, a modern czar. He is no threat to Western Europe, so NATO is obsolete.
Putin is an extreme threat to Western Europe. And he is a fascist. That's not a word I use lightly.
This is a misunderstanding of the nature of the EU. The EU is an innovation, that does not fit into the Westphalian model of an independent state, nor of an empire of coercive military occupation. A state occupies territory, possesses a monopoly on violence, and extends roughly equal democratic* rights to the majority of its inhabitants. And empire occupies In this view, the UK can't be regarded imperial wrt Scotland, since Scotland elects to the UK parliament in essentially an equal way to the rest of the UK. However, the UK can be regarded as imperial wrt the Falklands. Note that the description of imperial does not imply coercion, but coercion is often a feature.
So, onto the EU. The EU has no central police force, and no army. If an "EU" army formed, it wouldn't involve all members. There is no way at all that the EU can be described as holding a monopoly on violence. Each state retains that monopoly. The EU cannot be considered a state, and cannot be considered an empire. Furthermore, the EU does extend its democratic rights equally. The primary of these rights is the election of MEPs to the parliament, which is more-or-less weighted by population and elected on a proportional basis within each region. Other rights, eg the appointment of commissioners, are taken by the governments of member states. This is equal in a different way, not by population but by membership.
Some argue the EU exhibits empire-like behaviour eg compelling third countries to accept terms on commercial deals that favour it over the interests of those third countries. This is something that does happen, but isn't imperial. A helpful analogy here is the US. The US was certainly imperial in its treatment of unincorporated territories and the native tribes and nations that lived there. The US isn't imperial in seeking favourable trade deals with Mexico. The exercise of soft power & the politics of external influence are too broad to be defined as imperial, since they are practised by state and non-state actors alike.
In short, the EU is neither state nor empire. It's something else. And whether one regards that as angelic or demonic or something in between is ones own business, but it's never helpful to argue from a position of ignorance about a word's meaning. If anyone thinks they have a better idea of "imperial" please try to explain that and show how it applies to the EU. But I suspect that, sadly, a lot of the attempts to label the EU so are borne not of insight or analysis, but of mischief or stupidity.
There a lot to recommend this. Maybe the closest historical precedent would be the Holy Roman Empire. Irony with the name obviously. Not a perfect comparison but arguably the closest.
Is Sunil about? Is there anyone who knows anything about the train times available from Network Rail through their API?
I was on my LNER train back to Edinburgh yesterday, and it came to a halt at the platform exactly 60 minutes and 9 seconds late, a timing that I verified by checking my phone against the station clock, but the arrival time given in the data from Network Rail - available on websites like opentraintimes.com is 59 minutes late - which would mean that I miss out on half a delay repay refund.
What I wonder is whether the timing point at the station is at the end of the platform, so will always be upto half a minute earlier than the actual arrival time? Does anyone know?
Sorry, not sure. I normally check times on OTT. I take it your train was 1W24.
That's the point of the EU Army. LEAVE is fundamentally a pro-American campaign, whereas REMAIN is fundamentally pro-European. If you want to be subservient to a man who can be bought with the girly favours of Russian oilgarchs, bully to you.
It was the British and Americans who liberated western Europe in WW2 from the last pan European army headed by one Adolf Hitler.
A European army running alongside NATO may work well, a European army as a rival to NATO will not
Huh ? Who started pushing the Nazis back from December 1941 onwards. The allies landed in France in June 1944 !
Which does not change the point France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and ultimately west Germany itself ie western Europe were all liberated by the Allies not the Russians exactly as I said.
Russia was one of the Allies.
Russia did not liberate western Europe, not one Russian soldier was involved in freeing France, the Benelux nations, Italy, Scandinavia etc from Nazi rule, only American, British and Commonwealth nations were
Well they were involved indirectly, by defeating so many German divisions on the Eastern Front - but then of course were it not for Britain still being in the war in 1941 there would have been more German divisions to defeat the Soviets. It was an alliance and a joint victory.
What was not joint was the attitude and behaviour towards the countries that had been occupied by the Nazis - which was Nabavi's point.
Putin is no Stalin though, he is a right wing ethno-nationalist, a modern czar. He is no threat to Western Europe, so NATO is obsolete.
Putin is an extreme threat to Western Europe. And he is a fascist. That's not a word I use lightly.
His threat is not military though, it is ideological, via his little helpers and useful idiots.
If I were Trump I would avoid Guiliani talking to Congress, if only because he's repeatedly gone off the reservation. The chance of him saying something regretted later has to be pretty high.
I agree he has flaky form. If you haven’t seen this interview he looks rattled imo. Got a sweat on. Went big on the crimes of Biden his investigation allowed him to uncover. (Are we quite sure Biden is squeaky clean in this affair)
I’m still not convinced they’ve got enough on Trump to impeach him. He’s just not stupid enough to incriminate himself on the phone, he’s just not stupid enough to leave his fingerprint’s all over the smoking gun. If he flew lackys over there to threaten off record, then there won’t be enough evidence.
If he asked for favour wheres the delivered favour? That would be the evidence to take into court. Without that, its a court of law you need to go into it with enough to win. if you know he's guilty but you cant be sure of conviction don’t impeach. impeachment fires up his base, a failed impeachment gives him a win. 13 months time an election, if he has made mistakes use it against him in the campaign instead.
I don't think the Dems really expect or want to impeach Trump; impeaching him puts president Pence in and Pence would have a far better chance than Trump of winning in 2020.
The Dems largely do want to impeach him, and now expect to. And it's the right thing to do. Impeachment is a trial. Conviction is another matter, but there will be a political gain from the process itself. If Trump weren't obviously corrupted this would be a bad idea. But he is, so the shit will stick and stuck hard. Furthermore, it'll stick to those who block conviction in the Senate. This is an adversarial process, geared at seeking truth, that will play magnificently politically. It's going to be brilliant for the Dems.
That's the point of the EU Army. LEAVE is fundamentally a pro-American campaign, whereas REMAIN is fundamentally pro-European. If you want to be subservient to a man who can be bought with the girly favours of Russian oilgarchs, bully to you.
It was the British and Americans who liberated western Europe in WW2 from the last pan European army headed by one Adolf Hitler.
A European army running alongside NATO may work well, a European army as a rival to NATO will not
Huh ? Who started pushing the Nazis back from December 1941 onwards. The allies landed in France in June 1944 !
Which does not change the point France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and ultimately west Germany itself ie western Europe were all liberated by the Allies not the Russians exactly as I said.
Russia was one of the Allies.
Russia did not liberate western Europe, not one Russian soldier was involved in freeing France, the Benelux nations, Italy, Scandinavia etc from Nazi rule, only American, British and Commonwealth nations were
Well they were involved indirectly, by defeating so many German divisions on the Eastern Front - but then of course were it not for Britain still being in the war in 1941 there would have been more German divisions to defeat the Soviets. It was an alliance and a joint victory.
What was not joint was the attitude and behaviour towards the countries that had been occupied by the Nazis - which was Nabavi's point.
Putin is no Stalin though, he is a right wing ethno-nationalist, a modern czar. He is no threat to Western Europe, so NATO is obsolete.
Putin is an extreme threat to Western Europe. And he is a fascist. That's not a word I use lightly.
His threat is not military though, it is ideological, via his little helpers and useful idiots.
Yes, Russia’s military strength is over estimated. With an economy barely as big as Texas alone, and a military budget smaller than the UK it depends on aggressive propaganda and subterfuge to assert its military strength.
I wouldn’t necessarily want to test the theory but the UK can (just) afford to upgrade, maintain and deploy its nuclear deterrent. Russia has the worlds biggest nuclear stockpile. How it affords to keep it in any state of readiness is doubtful.
If I were Trump I would avoid Guiliani talking to Congress, if only because he's repeatedly gone off the reservation. The chance of him saying something regretted later has to be pretty high.
I agree he has flaky form. If you haven’t seen this interview he looks rattled imo. Got a sweat on. Went big on the crimes of Biden his investigation allowed him to uncover. (Are we quite sure Biden is squeaky clean in this affair)
I’m still not convinced they’ve got enough on Trump to impeach him. He’s just not stupid enough to incriminate himself on the phone, he’s just not stupid enough to leave his fingerprint’s all over the smoking gun. If he flew lackys over there to threaten off record, then there won’t be enough evidence.
If he asked for favour wheres the delivered favour? That would be the evidence to take into court. Without that, its a court of law you need to go into it with enough to win. if you know he's guilty but you cant be sure of conviction don’t impeach. impeachment fires up his base, a failed impeachment gives him a win. 13 months time an election, if he has made mistakes use it against him in the campaign instead.
I don't think the Dems really expect or want to impeach Trump; impeaching him puts president Pence in and Pence would have a far better chance than Trump of winning in 2020.
The Dems largely do want to impeach him, and now expect to. And it's the right thing to do. Impeachment is a trial. Conviction is another matter, but there will be a political gain from the process itself. If Trump weren't obviously corrupted this would be a bad idea. But he is, so the shit will stick and stuck hard. Furthermore, it'll stick to those who block conviction in the Senate. This is an adversarial process, geared at seeking truth, that will play magnificently politically. It's going to be brilliant for the Dems.
Its not, last time a President was impeached, Bill Clinton, he ended up increasing his popularity.
Plus the Senate is still GOP held and will certainly block any conviction before the 2020 elections
That's the point of the EU Army. LEAVE is fundamentally a pro-American campaign, whereas REMAIN is fundamentally pro-European. If you want to be subservient to a man who can be bought with the girly favours of Russian oilgarchs, bully to you.
It was the British and Americans who liberated western Europe in WW2 from the last pan European army headed by one Adolf Hitler.
A European army running alongside NATO may work well, a European army as a rival to NATO will not
Huh ? Who started pushing the Nazis back from December 1941 onwards. The allies landed in France in June 1944 !
Which does not change the point France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and ultimately west Germany itself ie western Europe were all liberated by the Allies not the Russians exactly as I said.
Russia was one of the Allies.
Russia did not liberate western Europe, not one Russian soldier was involved in freeing France, the Benelux nations, Italy, Scandinavia etc from Nazi rule, only American, British and Commonwealth nations were
Well they were involved indirectly, by defeating so many German divisions on the Eastern Front - but then of course were it not for Britain still being in the war in 1941 there would have been more German divisions to defeat the Soviets. It was an alliance and a joint victory.
What was not joint was the attitude and behaviour towards the countries that had been occupied by the Nazis - which was Nabavi's point.
Putin is no Stalin though, he is a right wing ethno-nationalist, a modern czar. He is no threat to Western Europe, so NATO is obsolete.
Putin is an extreme threat to Western Europe. And he is a fascist. That's not a word I use lightly.
His threat is not military though, it is ideological, via his little helpers and useful idiots.
Hybrid war is still war. NATO should be engaged in defending its member against these attacks. Hacking can kill, can change internal politics through compromat and blackmail, can destabilise institutions and processes, break alliances and alter the results of elections. Doesn't have to involve bullets and mortars to be war.
It was the British and Americans who liberated western Europe in WW2 from the last pan European army headed by one Adolf Hitler.
A European army running alongside NATO may work well, a European army as a rival to NATO will not
Out of interest why is the *western* part the interesting factor here?
Well as Eastern Europe ended up under Stalinist Communist occupation which was not much better than being under Nazi Fascist occupation unlike Western Europe which returned to be free and democratic states
That's the point of the EU Army. LEAVE is fundamentally a pro-American campaign, whereas REMAIN is fundamentally pro-European. If you want to be subservient to a man who can be bought with the girly favours of Russian oilgarchs, bully to you.
It was the British and Americans who liberated western Europe in WW2 from the last pan European army headed by one Adolf Hitler.
A European army running alongside NATO may work well, a European army as a rival to NATO will not
Huh ? Who started pushing the Nazis back from December 1941 onwards. The allies landed in France in June 1944 !
Which does not change the point France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and ultimately west Germany itself ie western Europe were all liberated by the Allies not the Russians exactly as I said.
Russia was one of the Allies.
@HYUFD prefers to airbrush the Russians out of the defeat of the Nazis.
The Russians were heavily involved in the defeat of Nazis, but were little better than them, so the "liberation" of Eastern Europe was less of an achievement than the liberation of Western Europe.
And on topic, does anyone really know what Cummings got up to during his 3 years in Russia?
He ran an airline that carried a single passenger. In other words, he was doing "something else" under cover of a thin story. I'll leave it to your imaginations to work out exactly what. Suffice to say he didn't come back from Russia wanting to harm Putin's strategic goals.
And on topic, does anyone really know what Cummings got up to during his 3 years in Russia?
He ran an airline that carried a single passenger. In other words, he was doing "something else" under cover of a thin story. I'll leave it to your imaginations to work out exactly what. Suffice to say he didn't come back from Russia wanting to harm Putin's strategic goals.
Was he up to the same kind of thing as Mr Corbyn on his motorcycle “holidays” behind the iron curtain?
And on topic, does anyone really know what Cummings got up to during his 3 years in Russia?
He ran an airline that carried a single passenger. In other words, he was doing "something else" under cover of a thin story. I'll leave it to your imaginations to work out exactly what. Suffice to say he didn't come back from Russia wanting to harm Putin's strategic goals.
Was he up to the same kind of thing as Mr Corbyn on his motorcycle “holidays” behind the iron curtain?
A couple of weeks on a motorbike is not the three years that Cummings had. It is a very opaque part of his biography.
And on topic, does anyone really know what Cummings got up to during his 3 years in Russia?
He ran an airline that carried a single passenger. In other words, he was doing "something else" under cover of a thin story. I'll leave it to your imaginations to work out exactly what. Suffice to say he didn't come back from Russia wanting to harm Putin's strategic goals.
Was he up to the same kind of thing as Mr Corbyn on his motorcycle “holidays” behind the iron curtain?
Can't speak for Corbyn's past, but if you're looking for parallels in Labour, start with Milne. Anybody with even a passing interest in Russian strategy over the past decade would steer clear of the Conservatives and Labour for Cummings and Milne alone. There are, of course, other reasons. But Cummings and Milne are easily sufficient.
And on topic, does anyone really know what Cummings got up to during his 3 years in Russia?
He ran an airline that carried a single passenger. In other words, he was doing "something else" under cover of a thin story. I'll leave it to your imaginations to work out exactly what. Suffice to say he didn't come back from Russia wanting to harm Putin's strategic goals.
Wasn't he in Russia during the Yeltsin period? There was a very particular kind of crisis tourism subculture among Western ex-pats at the time that I can imagine Cummings being part of.
And on topic, does anyone really know what Cummings got up to during his 3 years in Russia?
He ran an airline that carried a single passenger. In other words, he was doing "something else" under cover of a thin story. I'll leave it to your imaginations to work out exactly what. Suffice to say he didn't come back from Russia wanting to harm Putin's strategic goals.
Was he up to the same kind of thing as Mr Corbyn on his motorcycle “holidays” behind the iron curtain?
Can't speak for Corbyn's past, but if you're looking for parallels in Labour, start with Milne. Anybody with even a passing interest in Russian strategy over the past decade would steer clear of the Conservatives and Labour for Cummings and Milne alone. There are, of course, other reasons. But Cummings and Milne are easily sufficient.
Milne and some of the hard left seem incapable of realising that the Stalanists that they revere are history. Russia is under the rule of a kleptocracy of Putin and his oligarchs.
Though the Spiked-Online transition from Marxism to right wing populism is an equally interesting one.
And on topic, does anyone really know what Cummings got up to during his 3 years in Russia?
He ran an airline that carried a single passenger. In other words, he was doing "something else" under cover of a thin story. I'll leave it to your imaginations to work out exactly what. Suffice to say he didn't come back from Russia wanting to harm Putin's strategic goals.
Was he up to the same kind of thing as Mr Corbyn on his motorcycle “holidays” behind the iron curtain?
Can't speak for Corbyn's past, but if you're looking for parallels in Labour, start with Milne. Anybody with even a passing interest in Russian strategy over the past decade would steer clear of the Conservatives and Labour for Cummings and Milne alone. There are, of course, other reasons. But Cummings and Milne are easily sufficient.
Milne and some of the hard left seem incapable of realising that the Stalanists that they revere are history. Russia is under the rule of a kleptocracy of Putin and his oligarchs.
They just carry the flame. To build a new Jerusalem. So to speak.
And on topic, does anyone really know what Cummings got up to during his 3 years in Russia?
He ran an airline that carried a single passenger. In other words, he was doing "something else" under cover of a thin story. I'll leave it to your imaginations to work out exactly what. Suffice to say he didn't come back from Russia wanting to harm Putin's strategic goals.
Wasn't he in Russia during the Yeltsin period? There was a very particular kind of crisis tourism subculture among Western ex-pats at the time that I can imagine Cummings being part of.
Yes, during the period when Putin was rising to power, and distributing Soviet resources.
And on topic, does anyone really know what Cummings got up to during his 3 years in Russia?
He ran an airline that carried a single passenger. In other words, he was doing "something else" under cover of a thin story. I'll leave it to your imaginations to work out exactly what. Suffice to say he didn't come back from Russia wanting to harm Putin's strategic goals.
Wasn't he in Russia during the Yeltsin period? There was a very particular kind of crisis tourism subculture among Western ex-pats at the time that I can imagine Cummings being part of.
Yes, of course you're right. It was sloppy of my to imply Putin was in charge. Putin was installed as part of a wider strategy that included the cultivation of western assets. The KGB rebranded as the FSB, but there was no break in the continuity of its agents or activities. The main difference between then and now is the settlement between the state and the oligarchs, which was quite fluid in the 90s, and the descent of Putin into open fascism in the last 7 years or so. But the issues that are with us today extend well back into the 80s. Trump was compromised way back in the Ivana days.
That's the point of the EU Army. LEAVE is fundamentally a pro-American campaign, whereas REMAIN is fundamentally pro-European. If you want to be subservient to a man who can be bought with the girly favours of Russian oilgarchs, bully to you.
It was the British and Americans who liberated western Europe in WW2 from the last pan European army headed by one Adolf Hitler.
A European army running alongside NATO may work well, a European army as a rival to NATO will not
Huh ? Who started pushing the Nazis back from December 1941 onwards. The allies landed in France in June 1944 !
Which does not change the point France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and ultimately west Germany itself ie western Europe were all liberated by the Allies not the Russians exactly as I said.
Russia was one of the Allies.
Russia did not liberate western Europe, not one Russian soldier was involved in freeing France, the Benelux nations, Italy, Scandinavia etc from Nazi rule, only American, British and Commonwealth nations were
That's the point of the EU Army. LEAVE is fundamentally a pro-American campaign, whereas REMAIN is fundamentally pro-European. If you want to be subservient to a man who can be bought with the girly favours of Russian oilgarchs, bully to you.
It was the British and Americans who liberated western Europe in WW2 from the last pan European army headed by one Adolf Hitler.
A European army running alongside NATO may work well, a European army as a rival to NATO will not
Huh ? Who started pushing the Nazis back from December 1941 onwards. The allies landed in France in June 1944 !
Which does not change the point France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and ultimately west Germany itself ie western Europe were all liberated by the Allies not the Russians exactly as I said.
Russia was one of the Allies.
Russia did not liberate western Europe, not one Russian soldier was involved in freeing France, the Benelux nations, Italy, Scandinavia etc from Nazi rule, only American, British and Commonwealth nations were
Can we get "History with HY" on YouTube?
I mentioned Finnmark upthread - the Russians also liberated Denmark's most easterly island Bornholm in 1945.
Interesting: "In the case of Trump’s call with Prince Mohammed [bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia], officials who ordinarily would have been given access to a rough transcript of the conversation never saw one, according to one of the sources. Instead, a transcript was never circulated at all, which the source said was highly unusual, particularly after a high-profile conversation."
We know that Saudi Arabia formed part of the pro-Trump nexus that conspired to help get him elected in 2015-16. Now it looks like the President is trying to cover up details of conversations he's had with them more recently. Guaranteed it is more of the same as with Ukraine, asking for interference in domestic politics. Trump is in deep, deep shit.
That's the point of the EU Army. LEAVE is fundamentally a pro-American campaign, whereas REMAIN is fundamentally pro-European. If you want to be subservient to a man who can be bought with the girly favours of Russian oilgarchs, bully to you.
It was the British and Americans who liberated western Europe in WW2 from the last pan European army headed by one Adolf Hitler.
A European army running alongside NATO may work well, a European army as a rival to NATO will not
Huh ? Who started pushing the Nazis back from December 1941 onwards. The allies landed in France in June 1944 !
Which does not change the point France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and ultimately west Germany itself ie western Europe were all liberated by the Allies not the Russians exactly as I said.
Russia was one of the Allies.
Russia did not liberate western Europe, not one Russian soldier was involved in freeing France, the Benelux nations, Italy, Scandinavia etc from Nazi rule, only American, British and Commonwealth nations were
That's the point of the EU Army. LEAVE is fundamentally a pro-American campaign, whereas REMAIN is fundamentally pro-European. If you want to be subservient to a man who can be bought with the girly favours of Russian oilgarchs, bully to you.
It was the British and Americans who liberated western Europe in WW2 from the last pan European army headed by one Adolf Hitler.
A European army running alongside NATO may work well, a European army as a rival to NATO will not
Huh ? Who started pushing the Nazis back from December 1941 onwards. The allies landed in France in June 1944 !
Which does not change the point France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and ultimately west Germany itself ie western Europe were all liberated by the Allies not the Russians exactly as I said.
Russia was one of the Allies.
Russia did not liberate western Europe, not one Russian soldier was involved in freeing France, the Benelux nations, Italy, Scandinavia etc from Nazi rule, only American, British and Commonwealth nations were
Can we get "History with HY" on YouTube?
I mentioned Finnmark upthread - the Russians also liberated Denmark's most easterly island Bornholm in 1945.
That's the point of the EU Army. LEAVE is fundamentally a pro-American campaign, whereas REMAIN is fundamentally pro-European. If you want to be subservient to a man who can be bought with the girly favours of Russian oilgarchs, bully to you.
It was the British and Americans who liberated western Europe in WW2 from the last pan European army headed by one Adolf Hitler.
A European army running alongside NATO may work well, a European army as a rival to NATO will not
Huh ? Who started pushing the Nazis back from December 1941 onwards. The allies landed in France in June 1944 !
Which does not change the point France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway and ultimately west Germany itself ie western Europe were all liberated by the Allies not the Russians exactly as I said.
Russia was one of the Allies.
Russia did not liberate western Europe, not one Russian soldier was involved in freeing France, the Benelux nations, Italy, Scandinavia etc from Nazi rule, only American, British and Commonwealth nations were
Has anyone died from vaping in the UK? Because if not it makes it look like the problem isn't vaping in general but vaping in the USA specifically. But, of course, that's not how they're viewing it in the United States. They're viewing it as a problem with vaping per se.
Has anyone died from vaping in the UK? Because if not it makes it look like the problem isn't vaping in general but vaping in the USA specifically. But, of course, that's not how they're viewing it in the United States. They're viewing it as a problem with vaping per se.
isn't the problem specifically linked to people who are vaping marijuana from off the street dealers?
Has anyone died from vaping in the UK? Because if not it makes it look like the problem isn't vaping in general but vaping in the USA specifically. But, of course, that's not how they're viewing it in the United States. They're viewing it as a problem with vaping per se.
isn't the problem specifically linked to people who are vaping marijuana from off the street dealers?
Dura Ace was very negative on the prospect of the UK defending Estonia from Russian invasion. He felt we would walk away from our NATO commitments rather than allow our citizens' blood to be spilled on the streets of Tallinn.
This isn't based on any profound strategic insights but rather my experiences in Basra were the mission just became force protection (ie don't take any casualties) and all other objectives were abandoned.
Anybody who thinks a British government, of any complexion, has the stomach to take hundred or thousands of casualties every day - because that's what fighting the Russians for Tallinn means - is utterly deluding themselves.
This header, as might be expected from the political proclivities of the author, completely reverses cause and effect. It's the end of NATO that will accelerate the growth of the EU military structure (it's not going to be an "army") rather than the EUMS causing the demise of NATO.
NATO, on a medium term basis at least, is over and Britain needs to start preparing for that reality.
Dura Ace was very negative on the prospect of the UK defending Estonia from Russian invasion. He felt we would walk away from our NATO commitments rather than allow our citizens' blood to be spilled on the streets of Tallinn.
This isn't based on any profound strategic insights but rather my experiences in Basra were the mission just became force protection (ie don't take any casualties) and all other objectives were abandoned.
Anybody who thinks a British government, of any complexion, has the stomach to take hundred or thousands of casualties every day - because that's what fighting the Russians for Tallinn means - is utterly deluding themselves.
This header, as might be expected from the political proclivities of the author, completely reverses cause and effect. It's the end of NATO that will accelerate the growth of the EU military structure (it's not going to be an "army") rather than the EUMS causing the demise of NATO.
NATO, on a medium term basis at least, is over and Britain needs to start preparing for that reality.
Fighting the last war. You cannot gauge likely political or public reaction to a war in defence of plucky little Latvia, when the country would genuinely be defending the weak and attending by its treaty obligations, from memories of Bill and Tony's Excellent Brownie Shoot.
Is Sunil about? Is there anyone who knows anything about the train times available from Network Rail through their API?
I was on my LNER train back to Edinburgh yesterday, and it came to a halt at the platform exactly 60 minutes and 9 seconds late, a timing that I verified by checking my phone against the station clock, but the arrival time given in the data from Network Rail - available on websites like opentraintimes.com is 59 minutes late - which would mean that I miss out on half a delay repay refund.
What I wonder is whether the timing point at the station is at the end of the platform, so will always be upto half a minute earlier than the actual arrival time? Does anyone know?
Sorry, not sure. I normally check times on OTT. I take it your train was 1W24.
Comments
"the EU’s desire for empire-building"
This is a misunderstanding of the nature of the EU. The EU is an innovation, that does not fit into the Westphalian model of an independent state, nor of an empire of coercive military occupation. A state occupies territory, possesses a monopoly on violence, and extends roughly equal democratic* rights to the majority of its inhabitants. And empire occupies multiple territories, possesses a monopoly on violence within those territories but does not extend equal democratic rights between its territories. Thus an imperial capital could have universal suffrage but not have democracy within its colonies. Or the democracy in a colony could extend to domestic matters but not cover foreign policy, which is exclusively controlled by the electorate in the home country.
In this view, the UK can't be regarded imperial wrt Scotland, since Scotland elects to the UK parliament in essentially an equal way to the rest of the UK. However, the UK can be regarded as imperial wrt the Falklands. Note that the description of imperial does not imply coercion, but coercion is often a feature.
So, onto the EU. The EU has no central police force, and no army. If an "EU" army formed, it wouldn't involve all members. There is no way at all that the EU can be described as holding a monopoly on violence. Each state retains that monopoly. The EU cannot be considered a state, and cannot be considered an empire. Furthermore, the EU does extend its democratic rights equally. The primary of these rights is the election of MEPs to the parliament, which is more-or-less weighted by population and elected on a proportional basis within each region. Other rights, eg the appointment of commissioners, are taken by the governments of member states. This is equal in a different way, not by population but by membership.
Some argue the EU exhibits empire-like behaviour eg compelling third countries to accept terms on commercial deals that favour it over the interests of those third countries. This is something that does happen, but isn't imperial. A helpful analogy here is the US. The US was certainly imperial in its treatment of unincorporated territories and the native tribes and nations that lived there. The US isn't imperial in seeking favourable trade deals with Mexico. The exercise of soft power & the politics of external influence are too broad to be defined as imperial, since they are practised by state and non-state actors alike.
In short, the EU is neither state nor empire. It's something else. And whether one regards that as angelic or demonic or something in between is ones own business, but it's never helpful to argue from a position of ignorance about a word's meaning. If anyone thinks they have a better idea of "imperial" please try to explain that and show how it applies to the EU. But I suspect that, sadly, a lot of the attempts to label the EU so are borne not of insight or analysis, but of mischief or stupidity.
Do these politicians seriously think that leaving with no deal will unite the country .
Impeachment is a trial. Conviction is another matter, but there will be a political gain from the process itself. If Trump weren't obviously corrupted this would be a bad idea. But he is, so the shit will stick and stuck hard. Furthermore, it'll stick to those who block conviction in the Senate.
This is an adversarial process, geared at seeking truth, that will play magnificently politically. It's going to be brilliant for the Dems.
I wouldn’t necessarily want to test the theory but the UK can (just) afford to upgrade, maintain and deploy its nuclear deterrent. Russia has the worlds biggest nuclear stockpile. How it affords to keep it in any state of readiness is doubtful.
Plus the Senate is still GOP held and will certainly block any conviction before the 2020 elections
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/sep/28/spitting-image-returns-chaotic-times-trump-putin-zuckerberg
https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1177515032885649412?s=19
And on topic, does anyone really know what Cummings got up to during his 3 years in Russia?
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-anglo-american-nazi-war.211950/
https://www.sealionpress.co.uk/product-page/festung-europa
In other words, he was doing "something else" under cover of a thin story. I'll leave it to your imaginations to work out exactly what. Suffice to say he didn't come back from Russia wanting to harm Putin's strategic goals.
Anybody with even a passing interest in Russian strategy over the past decade would steer clear of the Conservatives and Labour for Cummings and Milne alone. There are, of course, other reasons. But Cummings and Milne are easily sufficient.
Without any confirmation, I would take his tweets with a rather large grain of salt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Ilyin
Though the Spiked-Online transition from Marxism to right wing populism is an equally interesting one.
(if you're unaware, Cohn was a mafia front who was Trump's best friend)
https://twitter.com/FBIRecordsVault/status/1177644087874179072
The main difference between then and now is the settlement between the state and the oligarchs, which was quite fluid in the 90s, and the descent of Putin into open fascism in the last 7 years or so. But the issues that are with us today extend well back into the 80s. Trump was compromised way back in the Ivana days.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/09/27/liberals-dont-understand-the-importance-of-the-nation/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7513303/Greta-Thunberg-hits-people-want-silence-us.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7512783/Pope-Francis-warns-Silicon-Valley-careful-AI-does-not-lead-new-form-barbarism.html
"In the case of Trump’s call with Prince Mohammed [bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia], officials who ordinarily would have been given access to a rough transcript of the conversation never saw one, according to one of the sources. Instead, a transcript was never circulated at all, which the source said was highly unusual, particularly after a high-profile conversation."
We know that Saudi Arabia formed part of the pro-Trump nexus that conspired to help get him elected in 2015-16. Now it looks like the President is trying to cover up details of conversations he's had with them more recently. Guaranteed it is more of the same as with Ukraine, asking for interference in domestic politics. Trump is in deep, deep shit.
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1177670240563601410?s=19
https://twitter.com/PaulBadertscher/status/1177622158715080704?s=19
Iowa reporter who exposed racist tweets fired for own tweets
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49857358
https://twitter.com/dwnews/status/1176891834339090432
(Wildly rough figures. Mostly for effect.)
So, cui bono?
Anybody who thinks a British government, of any complexion, has the stomach to take hundred or thousands of casualties every day - because that's what fighting the Russians for Tallinn means - is utterly deluding themselves.
This header, as might be expected from the political proclivities of the author, completely reverses cause and effect. It's the end of NATO that will accelerate the growth of the EU military structure (it's not going to be an "army") rather than the EUMS causing the demise of NATO.
NATO, on a medium term basis at least, is over and Britain needs to start preparing for that reality.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-49859988
BorisLabour not even trying for a deal.......Idiot.