So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Based on your argument, the will of the Scottish people was not to Brexit. Their desire for a European enclave North of Hadrian's Wall should be granted.
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Based on your argument, the will of the Scottish people was not to Brexit. Their desire for a European enclave North of Hadrian's Wall should be granted.
We can have indyref2 in a generation to decide, as Salmond promised in 2014
Are these rising cases matched by a rise in sickness?
Heneghan seemed fairly sanguine yesterday.
That`s the big question isn`t it. Foxy has said that the increase in Leicester infection numbers has not produced the anticipated additional hospitalisations (with the exception of last week when admissions rose from 8 to 13 - with none in ICU).
Seems to me that the government needs to get everyone to focus attention on hospitalisations as the best metric, rather than scared everyone all over again over infections when so many cases produce no significant health issues.
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
If that really is his attitude he should be nowhere near the levers of power.
Johnson's relationship with Cummings reminds me of the Peter Cook film, The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer. The hapless Prime Minister is advised but at the same time undermined by the Cook character. When the public realise what a dud the PM is Rimmer takes over.
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
Hitler even made plans with Franco for German forces to recapture Gibraltar in WW2 and hand it over to Spain in return for Spain joining the War on the Axis side but Franco in the end stayed neutral
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Based on your argument, the will of the Scottish people was not to Brexit. Their desire for a European enclave North of Hadrian's Wall should be granted.
We can have indyref2 in a generation to decide, as Salmond promised in 2014
No, but your boy plans to break a once in a generation promise in only a few months.
P.S. I am on your side over the Union, but it is difficult to avoid the humongous double standard here.
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
That the government stated openly that the plan is to flout international law "in a specific and limited way" in order to pursue the national interest at the potential expense of Brussels (last bit not said but implied and will no doubt be briefed) imo tells us what is really going on here.
It's yet another piece of tedious "We are Millwall aka the People's government and we don't care" jingo confected quite deliberately to wind up effete Remainy liberals and get their own side, the Salt of the Earth Leavers. pumped up and loving "Boris" and the Brexit all over again. Perhaps Cummings & Co were worried that passions were cooling. They don't want that obviously. If that happens, more people might notice other things, none of which speak well of the government they elected so recently.
Yep. So this is what I think is happening. PR and nothing else. They're feeding the fish. It won't change the Brexit outcome by one iota. No Deal is still a Not Happening event. There will still be major late compromise from us that ensures continuing close alignment with the EU and no border in Ireland (thus one in the Irish Sea) after 1 Jan 2021. But the Gang decided they needed a fresh dose of the Old Familiar right now. It's tedious for the rest of us but they know it works.
So, given that, I'm not playing. I'm not outraged. I'm not even interested.
The actual issue isn't that important - it's the impact on our global reputation that is important - and in 1 sentence this afternoon a Government minister destroyed it.
It's a feature of the internet age that what actually happens is not nearly as important as what is memorable.
So, it's still possible that, by the time the text of the Bill is published, it won't contain anything that breaches our existing treaty commitments, or if it does, that the government will be defeated in the Commons, and so we will never, in fact, break our existing treaty commitment. And yet, "we will break the law in a specific and limited way," may well be remembered as part of the fifteen second summary of Brexit. Fabulous.
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.
Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
The reason why it didn't deter the Argentinians is because there was not a bat in hells chance we would have nuked them. That is/was not what they were/are for.
I think Philip gave a better answer than I could have.
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
The QTWAIN to end all QTWAINs.
Thatcher was a proper Tory, she put defending our nation and its citizens, including overseas above all else, unlike some on the left she would not role over and allow our nation's territory to be lost no matter what the cost.
Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
I know you think the Tories should make any compromise necessary to retain power, but drop a hydrogen bomb? Really?
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Friendly advice:
When a post suggests that you wish to nuke somebody, don’t pass it off as being ‘the will of the people.’
Defending British citizens at all costs is the will of the people, including those in overseas territories and we have military defences for a reason to protect them from foreign invasion.
Though I highly doubt Spain is going to try and invade Gibraltar to test it, just as no nation is likely to invade the territory of the other nuclear powers like France, China, Russia and the USA
Was the UK not a nuclear power in 1982?
Indeed but we recaptured the Falklands via a task force, nuclear weapons are a last resort defence.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
It clearly wasn't a deterrent as it didn't deter them.
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
As I said it was a military junta, we defeated them militarily.
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
The reason why it didn't deter the Argentinians is because there was not a bat in hells chance we would have nuked them. That is/was not what they were/are for.
I think Philip gave a better answer than I could have.
The Falkland Islands was British territory, Thatcher was determined to defend them no matter what the cost as she showed when she gave the order to sink the Belgrano despite the fact it was arguably leaving the area.
Had the task force been unsuccessful Thatcher would certainly have ordered British subs to sink Argentine shipping in the South Atlantic until the islands were handed back.
Would she have nuked Buenos Aires, probably not but she would never have ruled out the option until the islands were back in British hands
France is a sign of what is to come, time for the Government to do something
Like what? Another national lockdown?
We should surely shut down pubs, stop foreign travel, encourage WFH
And how do we ever get out of this cycle, each turn of which destroys more businesses and ruins more young people's education?
A vaccine that reduces the infection to negligible levels.
Unfortunately, it’s rapidly becoming clear that’s the only long-term solution. It always seemed likely, but now it’s pretty well certain.
Or a mutation to something less deadly I suppose, but that’s not something we can altogether rely on.
Or go Swedish, take the hit, get it over with, go back to normal.
All the evidence is that herd immunity kicks in once 25-30% of the population has been infected. London is almost there - why do you think that it isn't having a second wave?
France is a sign of what is to come, time for the Government to do something
Like what? Another national lockdown?
We should surely shut down pubs, stop foreign travel, encourage WFH
And how do we ever get out of this cycle, each turn of which destroys more businesses and ruins more young people's education?
A vaccine that reduces the infection to negligible levels.
Unfortunately, it’s rapidly becoming clear that’s the only long-term solution. It always seemed likely, but now it’s pretty well certain.
Or a mutation to something less deadly I suppose, but that’s not something we can altogether rely on.
Or go Swedish, take the hit, get it over with, go back to normal.
All the evidence is that herd immunity kicks in once 25-30% of the population has been infected. London is almost there - why do you think that it isn't having a second wave?
Vaccine might be years away.
All eyes on Sweden. If they continue at their low level through the winter then Anders Tegnell will have been proved right: this is a marathon not a sprint.
So even Government ministers worry about this action.
Yet they do nothing, cowardice
They don’t worry about legality. So they’ll fold.
The only Tory MP who today, both inside and outside Parliament, spoke with any shred of integrity and understanding was Sir Bob Neill.
I would almost add Mrs May to that list of one.
Thank goodness she's not PM anymore.
As you know, I am not a Conservative, but I would happily agree to another 25 years of a Mrs May Government over another 25 days of the Dangerous Brothers (Johnson and Cummings).
So even Government ministers worry about this action.
Yet they do nothing, cowardice
They don’t worry about legality. So they’ll fold.
The only Tory MP who today, both inside and outside Parliament, spoke with any shred of integrity and understanding was Sir Bob Neill.
I would almost add Mrs May to that list of one.
Thank goodness she's not PM anymore.
As you know, I am not a Conservative, but I would happily agree to another 25 years of a Mrs May Government over another 25 days of the Dangerous Brothers (Johnson and Cummings).
That will give Rasputin a good excuse to blow the HoL up as well as the judges.
I expect it will amend it, so the Commons will have to insist. Ping pong but the Lord's can't overrule an 80 seat majority.
And if May or Neill or anyone else votes against I'd be happy to see them have the whip removed.
How many whips removed would convince the ERG to support whatever compromise Johnson comes home with in October?
It does look like an attempt to repeat the circumstances that led to the Withdrawal Agreement being passed. Will the same set of tricks work a second time? Who is being set-up to be shafted in the manner of the DUP?
Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.
Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.
Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
I give plenty of my writing on here already, a header would not really add much if you want to do one that is up to you but you made the first insult so don't be surprised if it was returned
@Philip_Thompson do you admit now that the deal is rubbish or you still think it's good?
I think it was ok. Better than Mays deal and good enough for the past 12 months so now we need to sort out the future.
So then why change it? This is really poor Philip.
Because the transition only lasted 12 months and then it expires.
We signed a treaty, we're now going to undermine it. Presumably if the EU did the same you'd be crying foul
Yeah shit happens.
Remind me never to agree a bet with you.
I have always honoured my bets!
Has Boris?
He's wrong on this one, and I'm not an obsessive critic like some here. Brandon Lewis is an idiot for admitting that they've been advised that this change breaks the agreement in the way that he did.
I'm not a fan of government by lawyers, as you end up with too many laws, but this is not a good look.
So even Government ministers worry about this action.
Yet they do nothing, cowardice
They don’t worry about legality. So they’ll fold.
The only Tory MP who today, both inside and outside Parliament, spoke with any shred of integrity and understanding was Sir Bob Neill.
I would almost add Mrs May to that list of one.
Thank goodness she's not PM anymore.
As you know, I am not a Conservative, but I would happily agree to another 25 years of a Mrs May Government over another 25 days of the Dangerous Brothers (Johnson and Cummings).
That kind of says it all doesn't it?
What it says is despite not approving of Mrs May, she is preferable to Johnson. I am scared stiff as to what Johnson is doing to my country.
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Based on your argument, the will of the Scottish people was not to Brexit. Their desire for a European enclave North of Hadrian's Wall should be granted.
We can have indyref2 in a generation to decide, as Salmond promised in 2014
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
Either U-turns or internal strife are a bad headline, which are the only two places this can go ; to an even greater extent "not getting Brexit done" is potentially a disastrous headline for a government elected on that in manifesto. Standing up for Britain regardless of all other circumstances, is only a good headline for the core Brexiter support who are locked in for now anyway.
France is a sign of what is to come, time for the Government to do something
Like what? Another national lockdown?
We should surely shut down pubs, stop foreign travel, encourage WFH
And how do we ever get out of this cycle, each turn of which destroys more businesses and ruins more young people's education?
A vaccine that reduces the infection to negligible levels.
Unfortunately, it’s rapidly becoming clear that’s the only long-term solution. It always seemed likely, but now it’s pretty well certain.
Or a mutation to something less deadly I suppose, but that’s not something we can altogether rely on.
Or go Swedish, take the hit, get it over with, go back to normal.
All the evidence is that herd immunity kicks in once 25-30% of the population has been infected. London is almost there - why do you think that it isn't having a second wave?
Vaccine might be years away.
All eyes on Sweden. If they continue at their low level through the winter then Anders Tegnell will have been proved right: this is a marathon not a sprint.
And if the Oxford vaccine proves successful then it's the likes of Germany and the other Scandinavian countries that will be proved right. One thing is clear, the UK is going to be in the loser column whatever happens. The only thing he government has done right is the vaccine programme, everything else has been abject, Sweden are not far behind IMO.
The Falkland Islands was British territory, Thatcher was determined to defend them no matter what the cost as she showed when she gave the order to sink the Belgrano despite the fact it was arguably leaving the area.
Had the task force been unsuccessful Thatcher would certainly have ordered British subs to sink Argentine shipping in the South Atlantic until the islands were handed back.
Would she have nuked Buenos Aires, probably not but she would never have ruled out the option until the islands were back in British hands
I believe the more likely target would have been Cordoba, not Buenos Aires.
However, the point is moot because, irrespective of the fact we have an independent nuclear deterrent, Washington would not have countenanced the use of a nuclear weapon in the western hemisphere and had we intended to do so would have made its view crystal clear to Downing Street.
The Labour narrative of the next five years is going to be to attempt to do what the Tories did from 2008, 2008 onwards was Labour crashed the car, Labour is going to try incompetence is holding Britain back
The Falkland Islands was British territory, Thatcher was determined to defend them no matter what the cost as she showed when she gave the order to sink the Belgrano despite the fact it was arguably leaving the area.
Had the task force been unsuccessful Thatcher would certainly have ordered British subs to sink Argentine shipping in the South Atlantic until the islands were handed back.
Would she have nuked Buenos Aires, probably not but she would never have ruled out the option until the islands were back in British hands
I believe the more likely target would have been Cordoba, not Buenos Aires.
However, the point is moot because, irrespective of the fact we have an independent nuclear deterrent, Washington would not have countenanced the use of a nuclear weapon in the western hemisphere and had we intended to do so would have made its view crystal clear to Downing Street.
Well if you could cut your articles in half to make basically the same points it would help matters too
When you are editor then you can give me instructions. OGH publishes them because he likes them.
Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
His contribution would be:
Tories Tories Tories Tories Tories Tories
All Elections and no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy All Elections and no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy All Elections and no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy All Elections and no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy
All Elections and no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy All Elections and no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy
All Elections and no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy All Elections and no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy
The Falkland Islands was British territory, Thatcher was determined to defend them no matter what the cost as she showed when she gave the order to sink the Belgrano despite the fact it was arguably leaving the area.
Had the task force been unsuccessful Thatcher would certainly have ordered British subs to sink Argentine shipping in the South Atlantic until the islands were handed back.
Would she have nuked Buenos Aires, probably not but she would never have ruled out the option until the islands were back in British hands
I believe the more likely target would have been Cordoba, not Buenos Aires.
However, the point is moot because, irrespective of the fact we have an independent nuclear deterrent, Washington would not have countenanced the use of a nuclear weapon in the western hemisphere and had we intended to do so would have made its view crystal clear to Downing Street.
They may well have done but Washington stayed neutral for a reason as both Thatcher's UK and Argentina were key allies, Reagan was also slightly scared of Thatcher so she would have not ruled it out until the islands were returned and Reagan would not have been able to do anything about it
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Labour narrative of the next five years is going to be to attempt to do what the Tories did from 2008, 2008 onwards was Labour crashed the car, Labour is going to try incompetence is holding Britain back
Being at capacity means it is on the verge of collapse? A bit of a stretch!
So when do we expect the Spanish parliament to formally abrogate the Treaties of Utrecht and take back control of Gibraltar ?
The moment their military is able to get past ours.
It probably can do that already, assuming we don't nuke Madrid, following decades of Tory defence cuts.
Oh for God’s sake: you’ll set @HYUFD off again! Wasn’t this his policy at one point?
I thought it was to nuke Edinburgh?
Edinburgh was tanks and Scottish infantry
HYUFD’s foreign policy primer:
• Turn Antrim into an Orangeman homeland
• Nuke Madrid
• Deploy a fleet of armed patrol boats on the River Tweed
Antrim has a Unionist majority, with every Antrim seat DUP, 98% of Gibraltarians voted to stay in the UK in a 2002 referendum and Scotland voted in a once in a generation 2014 referendum to stay in the UK.
So just defending the will of the people
Based on your argument, the will of the Scottish people was not to Brexit. Their desire for a European enclave North of Hadrian's Wall should be granted.
We can have indyref2 in a generation to decide, as Salmond promised in 2014
'I view it as a once in a generation thing' yes indeed as did the voters when they voted No and the British government will respect that whatever the SNP now says
The Falkland Islands was British territory, Thatcher was determined to defend them no matter what the cost as she showed when she gave the order to sink the Belgrano despite the fact it was arguably leaving the area.
Had the task force been unsuccessful Thatcher would certainly have ordered British subs to sink Argentine shipping in the South Atlantic until the islands were handed back.
Would she have nuked Buenos Aires, probably not but she would never have ruled out the option until the islands were back in British hands
I believe the more likely target would have been Cordoba, not Buenos Aires.
However, the point is moot because, irrespective of the fact we have an independent nuclear deterrent, Washington would not have countenanced the use of a nuclear weapon in the western hemisphere and had we intended to do so would have made its view crystal clear to Downing Street.
They may well have done but Washington stayed neutral for a reason as both Thatcher's UK and Argentina were key allies, Reagan was also slightly scared of Thatcher so she would have not ruled it out until the islands were returned and Reagan would not have been able to do anything about it
Like the US couldn't do anything about us retaking the Suez canal?
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
@Philip_Thompson do you admit now that the deal is rubbish or you still think it's good?
I think it was ok. Better than Mays deal and good enough for the past 12 months so now we need to sort out the future.
So then why change it? This is really poor Philip.
Because the transition only lasted 12 months and then it expires.
We signed a treaty, we're now going to undermine it. Presumably if the EU did the same you'd be crying foul
Yeah shit happens.
Remind me never to agree a bet with you.
I have always honoured my bets!
Has Boris?
He's wrong on this one, and I'm not an obsessive critic like some here. Brandon Lewis is an idiot for admitting that they've been advised that this change breaks the agreement in the way that he did.
I'm not a fan of government by lawyers, as you end up with too many laws, but this is not a good look.
He's only an idiot if there was a way they could plausibly deny it while having a way forward. If tomorrow's legislation has a "notwithstanding" clause in it to override the WA legislation then there was no way to avoid acknowledging it.
Though it's funny the critics who regularly bash the government (not saying yourself specifically) are essentially bashing it for being "too honest" today. Very refreshing.
Oh we're up to first strike on a non nuclear nation already? It's sad what the party has turned into. Hopefully they'll be cleared away once Boris falls and takes that c*** Dom with him.
Oh we're up to first strike on a non nuclear nation already? It's sad what the party has turned into. Hopefully they'll be cleared away once Boris falls and takes that c*** Dom with him.
Well said Max, you are one of the few Tories I really listen to here
So even Government ministers worry about this action.
Yet they do nothing, cowardice
They don’t worry about legality. So they’ll fold.
The only Tory MP who today, both inside and outside Parliament, spoke with any shred of integrity and understanding was Sir Bob Neill.
I would almost add Mrs May to that list of one.
Thank goodness she's not PM anymore.
As you know, I am not a Conservative, but I would happily agree to another 25 years of a Mrs May Government over another 25 days of the Dangerous Brothers (Johnson and Cummings).
That kind of says it all doesn't it?
What it says is despite not approving of Mrs May, she is preferable to Johnson. I am scared stiff as to what Johnson is doing to my country.
Whereas I'm delighted. Considering we have opposing POVs on politics that's quite reasonable.
Boris is shaping up to be the best PM since Thatcher.
Oh we're up to first strike on a non nuclear nation already? It's sad what the party has turned into. Hopefully they'll be cleared away once Boris falls and takes that c*** Dom with him.
The Falkland Islands was British territory, Thatcher was determined to defend them no matter what the cost as she showed when she gave the order to sink the Belgrano despite the fact it was arguably leaving the area.
Had the task force been unsuccessful Thatcher would certainly have ordered British subs to sink Argentine shipping in the South Atlantic until the islands were handed back.
Would she have nuked Buenos Aires, probably not but she would never have ruled out the option until the islands were back in British hands
I believe the more likely target would have been Cordoba, not Buenos Aires.
However, the point is moot because, irrespective of the fact we have an independent nuclear deterrent, Washington would not have countenanced the use of a nuclear weapon in the western hemisphere and had we intended to do so would have made its view crystal clear to Downing Street.
They may well have done but Washington stayed neutral for a reason as both Thatcher's UK and Argentina were key allies, Reagan was also slightly scared of Thatcher so she would have not ruled it out until the islands were returned and Reagan would not have been able to do anything about it
Like the US couldn't do anything about us retaking the Suez canal?
Eisenhower had warned Britain not to invade beforehand and did not have the personal relationship with Eden Reagan had with Thatcher who was his closest international ally and a far tougher character than Eden.
Provided Thatcher did not actually nuke Buenos Aires but kept up the threat and stuck to just sinking Argentine boats the US would not have done anything, though had Thatcher actually nuked Buenos Aires the US selling sterling bonds after the event as happened at Suez would have been too late to stop it as it was too late to stop the invasion of the Suez canal.
You can withdraw an invasion force, you cannot withdraw a nuke once it has exploded
Very interested to see whether we get a typical Boris U-turn under these kind of circumstances, or whether it's Cummings-protected territory.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
You think the UK government standing up for the UK is a bad headline? Interesting.
UK government breaks law is a very, very poor headline. Even my fairly staunchly conservative dad has been pretty concerned about this latest turn of events, he was a member for 35 years and has voted Conservative since he was of voting age. If they're losing his vote to Starmer "he seems to be more reasonable" then the party is in serious trouble. He voted Tory in 1997, Boris is losing his vote with this stuff. I've already decided not to vote Tory if Boris leads the party into the next election, but I admit my vote is atypical, but my dad is basically core middle England aspirational working class voter personified. Losing his vote means Boris is losing millions elsewhere in the country.
The Tories got 43.6% at GE19, they are on 40% today, a small swing to Starmer Labour yes but hardly losing millions across the country on a 1997 scale
We're not at 2024 yet and this is today's news, it's not going to be in the polling. Hand on heart, this is the first time in my voting life I won't be voting Tory if Boris is still there. I couldn't bring myself to support the party any more.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?
Comments
Yet they do nothing, cowardice
Seems to me that the government needs to get everyone to focus attention on hospitalisations as the best metric, rather than scared everyone all over again over infections when so many cases produce no significant health issues.
Argentina was also in the hands of a military junta at the time, if Franco was still in charge in Spain rather than it being a democracy then clearly Gibraltar would be at greater threat of invasion.
However the fact we were prepared to send a task force the recapture the Falklands and the fact we have nuclear weapons acts as a deterrent
The only Tory MP who today, both inside and outside Parliament, spoke with any shred of integrity and understanding was Sir Bob Neill.
Johnson's relationship with Cummings reminds me of the Peter Cook film, The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer. The hapless Prime Minister is advised but at the same time undermined by the Cook character. When the public realise what a dud the PM is Rimmer takes over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Felix
Jeremy Corbyn's agenda in a parallel universe
Do you think that if the task force had failed we would have nuked Argentina?
Would Thatcher have sent a submarine to nuke Buenos Aires if the task force had failed and Argentine refused to withdraw from the Falklands? Who knows. However I suspect she would have kept them guessing and not ruled it out to maximise the chances of liberating the islands
P.S. I am on your side over the Union, but it is difficult to avoid the humongous double standard here.
So, it's still possible that, by the time the text of the Bill is published, it won't contain anything that breaches our existing treaty commitments, or if it does, that the government will be defeated in the Commons, and so we will never, in fact, break our existing treaty commitment. And yet, "we will break the law in a specific and limited way," may well be remembered as part of the fifteen second summary of Brexit. Fabulous.
Had Thatcher lost the Falklands War she may well have lost the 1983 election which would also have been in the back of her mind
That will give Rasputin a good excuse to blow the HoL up as well as the judges.
And if May or Neill or anyone else votes against I'd be happy to see them have the whip removed.
I think Philip gave a better answer than I could have.
Had the task force been unsuccessful Thatcher would certainly have ordered British subs to sink Argentine shipping in the South Atlantic until the islands were handed back.
Would she have nuked Buenos Aires, probably not but she would never have ruled out the option until the islands were back in British hands
All the evidence is that herd immunity kicks in once 25-30% of the population has been infected. London is almost there - why do you think that it isn't having a second wave?
All eyes on Sweden. If they continue at their low level through the winter then Anders Tegnell will have been proved right: this is a marathon not a sprint.
Perhaps you could offer us a header so that we can see the quality of your writing and thought.
Either way, it ensures another few weeks of bad headlines and more erosion of support.
Tories
Tories
Tories
Tories
Tories
Tories
Lol
It does look like an attempt to repeat the circumstances that led to the Withdrawal Agreement being passed. Will the same set of tricks work a second time? Who is being set-up to be shafted in the manner of the DUP?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cautionary_Towns
He's wrong on this one, and I'm not an obsessive critic like some here. Brandon Lewis is an idiot for admitting that they've been advised that this change breaks the agreement in the way that he did.
I'm not a fan of government by lawyers, as you end up with too many laws, but this is not a good look.
Lefties here: Starmer wins
PB Tories here: Johnson wins
Don't be daft!
https://twitter.com/AngusMacNeilSNP/status/1301600379520659456?s=20
However, the point is moot because, irrespective of the fact we have an independent nuclear deterrent, Washington would not have countenanced the use of a nuclear weapon in the western hemisphere and had we intended to do so would have made its view crystal clear to Downing Street.
The Labour narrative of the next five years is going to be to attempt to do what the Tories did from 2008, 2008 onwards was Labour crashed the car, Labour is going to try incompetence is holding Britain back
All Elections and no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy
All Elections and no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy
All Elections and no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy
All Elections and no Referendums
make HYUFD a dull boy
All Elections and no Referendums
make HYUFD a dull boy
All Elections and
no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy
All Elections and
no Referendums make HYUFD a dull boy
She really gets going at ≈ 5mins.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1303356183508668419?s=20
Though it's funny the critics who regularly bash the government (not saying yourself specifically) are essentially bashing it for being "too honest" today. Very refreshing.
Boris is shaping up to be the best PM since Thatcher.
Provided Thatcher did not actually nuke Buenos Aires but kept up the threat and stuck to just sinking Argentine boats the US would not have done anything, though had Thatcher actually nuked Buenos Aires the US selling sterling bonds after the event as happened at Suez would have been too late to stop it as it was too late to stop the invasion of the Suez canal.
You can withdraw an invasion force, you cannot withdraw a nuke once it has exploded
Brilliant.
Backsliding on international agreements is a really, really bad look for any government. It's what people expect from China, not the UK. What's your personal view on it?