I still can’t decide whether he’s likely to just fade away, or if the US descends into serious civil unrest.
He'll definitely run in 2024. Why wouldn't he? Because he suddenly develops a distaste for power, wealth and other people's money? He will start campaigning for MAGA2024 on 20/1/21. The rest of the quasi-fascists and bible wankers in the GOP can do nothing to stop him.
He'll probably win as he'll either be up against whatever is left of Biden's brain in a jar hooked up to a car battery and Hunter's laptop or Kamala Harris.
He’s already said he’ll start campaigning on inauguration day, and he’s favourite for the nomination if he doesn’t get bored in the meantime, or get a stroke, or decide he doesn’t want to be a two time loser. I think he’d get beaten, badly, if he persists.
I still think there’s a non zero chance of some sort of actual physical coup attempt involving all these recent appointees to the Pentagon. It will fail miserably, but we could be seeing him in prison within a couple of months.
All it will take is somebody to convince him that such a thing is plausible and he will go for it. That pattern (people telling him what he wants to hear and not questioning the validity of what he is told - with these things becoming ever more outlandish over time) has been the trajectory of the entire post election period.
Just elaborating on this. I think there are basically two types of people Trump listens to. Those he trusts, and those who always say what he wants to hear. By definition the former group may sometimes disagree, the latter will always agree.
In the immediate aftermath of the election there were still a reasonable number not just in the former group, but, importantly, relatively sane people in the former group. So he was still hearing relatively moderate options that he could pursue as he attempted to hold on to the Presidency. As the legal losses have mounted up and options reduced, this former group have melted away. Because they can' t offer him what he wants - a viable route to staying in the White House. So over time the "advice" is coming from the crazier ones that he trusts and, increasingly, the other group who is just adjusting the advice to ever more extreme options.
And that only leads inevitably to one outcome - an attempted formal coup. Whether by force of arms, or attempting quasi-plausible sounding legal options like "invoking the insurrection act" or other emergency powers. He's going to try it. You just wait. Or will do unless a serious bulk of Republican lawmakers finally show some spine and stand up to him.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
But we would be leaving Scotland ungarrisoned and Gibraltar naked to the Spanish meanwhile....
We have a bigger navy and military than Spain and Argentina combined, there would still be plenty of police and security forces to deal with any protests which turned violent in Scotland
That is starting to sound a little more like 1882, although you did also mention the sort of action God took in the Old Testament, which I suppose takes us back a bit further still.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
So the UK fish and chip shop industry bust within 2 months as most existing supply chains are cut at a stroke?
No, as all British fish would go to British fish and chip shops, not the continent
Either last-minute "climax positioning", or things really are looking bad.
Given that Brexiteer ministers live in a fantasy world where there are only a couple of half empty ferries a day from Dover to the continent then I suspect these last minute demands were actually always there on the table but the cakists just refuse to acknowledge their existence.
Katya Adler's report on Marr strongly suggests that Bozo's silly buggers with being prepared to break his previous agreements and international law has hugely damaged trust between the negotiators, and the EU now wants everything tied down. This may be what Frost is claiming are new demands.
The EU may be demanding that the Internal Markets Bill be dropped. If the government reintroduces the bill on Monday, it's all over.
Certainly looks that way. I don't see how we don't No Deal now at least for a month or two until chaos brings people back to the table in early spring.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
The RN has a surfeit of OPVs for fisheries enforcement as delays to the T26 program meant the MoD had to order a batch of River Class vessels it didn't need to keep BAE happy.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
You applying for CDS ?
That would leave you without the resources to retake the newly independent Scotland. Let alone Gibraltar.
Our military is bigger than Spain's and Argentina's combined, we have the resources required if needed to deal with any disturbance, especially given the government is increasing military spending again
Nothing good comes from engaging with nutters on Twitter and such discussions never go anywhere.
A problem (also relevant to Alastair's header) is what to do if old friends have opinions that you think are nuts. I know an American couple in SC - she at least is a passionate Trump supporter and posts on many forums to say so. He is not commenting. I've known them for 20 years and they are good friends and seemingly a happily married couple. I've simply paused writing to them - I can't ask him to comment as he'll feel bound by loyalty (and perhaps agrees with her), and not mentioning the subject that she posts about several times a day seems odd. I'll drop them a friendly note at Christmas.
What if friends are lockdown/vaccination denialists? They are potentially causing harm to others as well as themselves, I think. If you think this, how hard to do you push?
You won't be able to change their minds so there is no moral requirement to intervene. If you have changed your mind about the value of your friendship just drop them. If you still value them as friends then turn a blind eye to their stupidity in this instance. I wouldn't engage with them on it. Waste of time and distressing.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Do you believe that what is written in the Old Testament actually happened?
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
So the UK fish and chip shop industry bust within 2 months as most existing supply chains are cut at a stroke?
No, as all British fish would go to British fish and chip shops, not the continent
Lobster and chips instead of cod?
A Brexit bonus, I had previously not countenanced.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
So the UK fish and chip shop industry bust within 2 months as most existing supply chains are cut at a stroke?
No, as all British fish would go to British fish and chip shops, not the continent
Lobster and chips instead of cod?
On the island we are awash with crab (and a fair few lobsters), and the locals do their best to promote and sell it, claiming crab and chips as the 'island's dish' and making crab pasties, crab sandwiches, crab samosas, you name it. I'm quite partial to crab myself, but it seems to be the kind of thing people will try as a novelty but not buy on a regular basis.
Trump's Georgia rally is near-disastrous for the GOP run-offs. Instead of focusing on the two Republican candidates he has launched a vitriolic attack on Governor Brian Kemp, pressuring him to call a special session and convince state legislators to select their own electors that would support him, according to a Washington Post source. He also asked the Republican governor to order an audit of absentee ballot signatures
Then, at the rally, he went on another of his narcissistic tantrum rants.
I'm beginning to dare to hope that the Democrats might just win both run-offs. Early voting begins a week tomorrow.
The EC will be decided on December 14th when Biden will be elected, at which point there is no prospect of Trump becoming President again and the question in the run offs is not defeating Trump but stopping Democratic dominance of every branch of the Federal government and the far left pushing their agenda in Congress, which will in turn drive GOP turnout
The Democrats driven by the far left will dominate? Sounds good. Always knew that Comrade Biden's long sleeper infiltration would pay off in the end. Was he directly involved in that pineapple pizza paedophile ring too?
That's the price of a free society. Ultimately people want an alternative to lockdown so there will be a market for it. I also think that having contrasting opinions and views is something that this nation benefits from. I disagree with much of the substance of what they are saying, but this is a useful conduit to seeing what the opposing argument actually is. Government messaging and other experts should he hitting all of this point by point at every opportunity.
You don't defeat this by shutting down their platform, you defeat them by having a better argument. You of all people should know this Alastair. You spent 20 years calling Eurosceptics racists and loonies then forgot to come up with an argument for why remaining was better than leaving. I'm not sure repeating that with lockdowns or the virus is going to be helpful.
Stop it. Wasted quite a few minutes to find (well not find) a couple of missing States. Can't stop myself from doing it.
North Dakota South Dakota Pennsylvania New Mexico
I had already found those ones and then stopped. When I said not found I meant I had found they weren't there, That is I had found they can't be found.
More time wasted. If this goes much further I might find myself getting out a jigsaw and go the whole hog.
Nebraska, Kansas.... Makes the point about the fly-over states.....
But we are heading for rebirth as a banana republic (lacking bananas) and with the PM in the role of El Presidente whilst being cheered on by hordes of Tories who mistakenly believe that they will be OK whatever the outcome because they are on the same side as Boris....
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
The RN has a surfeit of OPVs for fisheries enforcement as delays to the T26 program meant the MoD had to order a batch of River Class vessels it didn't need to keep BAE happy.
RN and coastguard patrols also have migrants in dinghies and Russian subs tapping our Channel cables to worry about, of course. And drug smuggling.
As discussed, If the Redwoodites do get their Albania-style deal and no terms are agreed, there'll be a very brief moment of reactionary honeymoon ; very vivid and rewarding for those involved, but very brief. Then will come the absolutely precipitous collapse of conservative support over the next year.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
So the UK fish and chip shop industry bust within 2 months as most existing supply chains are cut at a stroke?
No, as all British fish would go to British fish and chip shops, not the continent
Your typically chippy isn't going to pay the prices wanted for the more exotic fish we cafch
If you don’t like Johnson then the practical effects of No Deal is the best way to see him out of the door.
This is true, but surely even BoZo has realised that as well?
If he does a deal, he might get defenestrated.
If he does no deal, he will get defenestrated.
Since about a fortnight after the Referendum my rational attitude (when I don’t let emotion get in the way) has been “this is impossible, the only way to prove that is to let them try”. That was the logic that led me to resign from the LDs over Revoke. The inherent contradictions of the Brexit campaign and the untruths inherent in it will only be felt in the new year after a long and miserable winter. If I am wrong then the country sails on to those sunny waters we have been promised. If I am right then Johnson is discredited, he will go, and we can move on to some sort of rational arrangement with our neighbours. England’s best future looks like a bigger version of the Netherlands, maybe without the drug liberalisation.
BTW if COVID had not happened then he might have been able to get away with blaming the EU. But his incompetence has been laid bare and voters are simply not going to say “oh, he got COVID wrong, but the played a blinder with the EU”. People just don’t like or trust him anymore, that increasingly includes his own party.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
...and French fishermen? Come the day of your revolution, I hope I am somewhere else!
Was a time the EU would have bought off the French fisherman to get a deal with the UK.
Was a time they had the UK's money to do it with...
I disagree with your theory, but I appreciate your pithy irony.
A little humour to lighten HYUFD'S General Idi Amin strategism is appreciated.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Furthermore, I think I'm right in recalling that several close-to-the-ground quite senior commanders felt that the Falklands War was, in the words of the Duke of Wellington, 'a damn close run thing' and had the Argentinians used better troops than half trained conscripts it could easily have gone the other way.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
So the UK fish and chip shop industry bust within 2 months as most existing supply chains are cut at a stroke?
No, as all British fish would go to British fish and chip shops, not the continent
Where are they going to be processed? Most of that happens in the EU at the moment.
Eustace back to talking about tariffs on fish, when the issue is red tape, paperwork and customs delays. Having fresh fish hanging around because of admin isn't going to be a sweet smelling story.
You're absolutely right CR, but it is so easy to get sucked in. Several time I have tried to engage the religious nutters who turn up at my door and try to explain with probability, Carbon dating and Potassium dating they are talking nonsense. Complete waste of time, but still do it and regret it each time.
I used to have a colleague who was a practising Jew, and quietly devout. His recipe for dealing with these callers was to inform them gravely that he was an acolyte of Satan. "If you tell them you follow a different belief they just try to convert you and you all get frustrated, they and you are happier if they think you're the other side."
On topic I am not sure I agree. People have the right to be idiots and to be wrong. Just occasionally, like the stopped clock, they are right. These are important rights and essential in a civil society.
People like Alastair are always worried that those who are less clever and less informed will be misled. But I suspect that a lot of what he is worrying about (because it is plainly wrong) simply passes most people by without them even noticing. A good test case is coming up. How many people will choose not to be vaccinated? I suspect very few, especially as the millions of us who receive it seem ok after all and can still use aeroplanes and go to football matches. Sometimes, I would argue most times, you need to weigh the cost of acting as well as the cost of not acting. Its not something our political classes are very good at. They like to be seen doing things. In this case the cost of imposing the type of restrictions that Alastair appears to be wanting on free speech is, in my view, excessive just as the idiotic Leveson proposals were.
Mock, laugh, correct, ignore but don't ban except as a very last resort (inciting violence, for example).
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
So the UK fish and chip shop industry bust within 2 months as most existing supply chains are cut at a stroke?
No, as all British fish would go to British fish and chip shops, not the continent
Lol.
"Large cod and chips, please".
"Sorry, we don't have that sir, but have you tried mackerel?"
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Furthermore, I think I'm right in recalling that several close-to-the-ground quite senior commanders felt that the Falklands War was, in the words of the Duke of Wellington, 'a damn close run thing' and had the Argentinians used better troops than half trained conscripts it could easily have gone the other way.
I heard from (Junior) Officers on the ground that General Galtieri only just beat us to the surrender. But hey with HYUFD sounding the bugle this time, we'll be fine.
For those who have access Tim Shipman is excellent this morning.
Basically a deal was there (and a compromise on fishing along the lines I'd suggested, even up to 50%) but then France went in at the 11th hour and shat the bed:
Fish and Chips, ofcourse, being a dish created by Portugese Jewish fishermen who came to Britain, and who mixed it with French fries.
That surprises me. Certainly in Scotland many, perhaps even most, fish and chip shops tended to be run by Italian immigrant families. One used to live two doors down from us and had 3 shops. Their daughter is also in the food business but sells pasta based Italian street food. My understanding is that when these Italians arrived there was less demand for that sort of food so they made fish and chips instead.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Furthermore, I think I'm right in recalling that several close-to-the-ground quite senior commanders felt that the Falklands War was, in the words of the Duke of Wellington, 'a damn close run thing' and had the Argentinians used better troops than half trained conscripts it could easily have gone the other way.
I heard from (Junior) Officers on the ground that General Galtieri only just beat us to the surrender. But hey with HYUFD sounding the bugle this time, we'll be fine.
If everything else fails, we can always depend upon the Epping militia.
If you don’t like Johnson then the practical effects of No Deal is the best way to see him out of the door.
So... How many Cabinet Ministers have sent the PM a 10 page memo, saying that of course they are fully on board with the strategy, but (in a sentence in the middle of a paragraph on page 7) he really ought to sort out these flaws so that No Deal can work. And how many of those memos will get leaked to a Sunday paper in 2 month's time?
The clown’s problem is that he has spent his political capital and blown his credibility just before the main event for which he always needed them.
But the cabinet of useless sycophants are totally behind him...
If you remember, this time last year our PM was going round the country talking about an oven-ready deal which he only had to pop in the microwave.
Edit; FFS.
Part of the additional problem is that without some sort of transition, almost all the chaos of no-deal will happen under a deal scenario anyway. So they’ll decide politically, why bother with the latter?
You would have thought that the headlines about the military flying in vaccine supplies to get round the border problems would have made them question what they were doing. That such a thing would be necessary. There is no situation where needing to rely on the military should be seen as a “good news story”. Relying on the military for civilian roles is about the biggest admission/evidence of the failure of the state that you can get. It’s no surprise it’s been cited as a potential backstop so often in recent years.
One thing that will be amusing amid the madness is how they will explain away the fish shortages.
That's another one of those 'bullshitters bullshitting' headlines.
Headline: "Military planes to fly vaccines in to Britain to avoid ports hit by Brexit"
Reality once you read the story There is a contingency plan.
And how many flights will it take to fly in those "pizza boxes", each with 950 doses per box? A pallet 10 x 10 x 20 of such boxes is 1.9 million doses....
A single C-17 has a cargo area 27m x 5.5m x 3.75m high, and has a max load of 77,500kg.
You’d probably do it with one plane in less than a week.
I reckon we could get our current 2020 allocation in a single flight. Here by lunchtime....
Eggs and basket come to mind.
Alternatively, send a thousand guys with pizza delivery bikes.....
But then you’d get the stiff upper lipped Great British Public phoning the cops cos they’re sans pizzas.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
So the UK fish and chip shop industry bust within 2 months as most existing supply chains are cut at a stroke?
No, as all British fish would go to British fish and chip shops, not the continent
Where are they going to be processed? Most of that happens in the EU at the moment.
We’ll subsist on a diet of three day old mackerel sashimi....
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
So the UK fish and chip shop industry bust within 2 months as most existing supply chains are cut at a stroke?
No, as all British fish would go to British fish and chip shops, not the continent
Lobster and chips instead of cod?
Most cod comes from British waters in the North Sea
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Furthermore, I think I'm right in recalling that several close-to-the-ground quite senior commanders felt that the Falklands War was, in the words of the Duke of Wellington, 'a damn close run thing' and had the Argentinians used better troops than half trained conscripts it could easily have gone the other way.
Defeatist talk. We didn’t have General HYUFD back then.
Stop it. Wasted quite a few minutes to find (well not find) a couple of missing States. Can't stop myself from doing it.
North Dakota South Dakota Pennsylvania New Mexico
I had already found those ones and then stopped. When I said not found I meant I had found they weren't there, That is I had found they can't be found.
More time wasted. If this goes much further I might find myself getting out a jigsaw and go the whole hog.
Nebraska, Kansas.... Makes the point about the fly-over states.....
EDIT: the other being Delaware.
North and south Dakota seem to be missing. Same point. Edit, apologies, didn't see these had already been spotted.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Your weak, wet approach to defending British sovereign territory and subjects is far more alarming
Fish and Chips, ofcourse, being a dish created by Portugese Jewish fishermen who came to Britain, and who mixed it with French fries.
That surprises me. Certainly in Scotland many, perhaps even most, fish and chip shops tended to be run by Italian immigrant families. One used to live two doors down from us and had 3 shops. Their daughter is also in the food business but sells pasta based Italian street food. My understanding is that when these Italians arrived there was less demand for that sort of food so they made fish and chips instead.
I think that would probably be more a case of Italians adopting a British/Portugese dish than bringing any native ideas with them, as far as I know of any origins of the dish.
According to WP: The dish originated in England and is an example of culinary fusion, combining Iberian Jewish fried fish with Belgian fried potatoes. Fish and chips is a common take-away food in the United Kingdom and numerous other countries, particularly in English-speaking and Commonwealth nations. Fish and chips first appeared in the UK in the 1860s, and by 1910, there were over 25,000 fish and chip shops across the UK. By the 1930s there were over 35,000 shops, but the trend reversed and by 2009 there were only approximately 10,000.[
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Furthermore, I think I'm right in recalling that several close-to-the-ground quite senior commanders felt that the Falklands War was, in the words of the Duke of Wellington, 'a damn close run thing' and had the Argentinians used better troops than half trained conscripts it could easily have gone the other way.
Argentina has fewer troops now than it did in 1982 and fewer ships, it has a weaker military and could not even win with a stronger one at that time
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Furthermore, I think I'm right in recalling that several close-to-the-ground quite senior commanders felt that the Falklands War was, in the words of the Duke of Wellington, 'a damn close run thing' and had the Argentinians used better troops than half trained conscripts it could easily have gone the other way.
Argentina has fewer troops now than it did in 1982 and fewer ships, it has a weaker military and could not even win with a stronger one at that time
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Your weak, wet approach to defending British sovereign territory and subjects is far more alarming
So if there was a fight you’d know you would lose, that the generals told you you would lose, you would still fight anyway?
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
So the UK fish and chip shop industry bust within 2 months as most existing supply chains are cut at a stroke?
No, as all British fish would go to British fish and chip shops, not the continent
Lobster and chips instead of cod?
Most cod comes from British waters in the North Sea
Cod is a much firmer fish which really responds well to being cooked gently in a nice sauce. For fish and chips haddock is vastly superior being flaky and soft.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Furthermore, I think I'm right in recalling that several close-to-the-ground quite senior commanders felt that the Falklands War was, in the words of the Duke of Wellington, 'a damn close run thing' and had the Argentinians used better troops than half trained conscripts it could easily have gone the other way.
Argentina has fewer troops now than it did in 1982 and fewer ships, it has a weaker military and could not even win with a stronger one at that time
Whereas the UK...
I suppose we've always got Trident in reserve.
We have more troops and more ships than Argentina, Argentina does not have a single aircraft carrier for example and indeed far fewer submarines than the Royal Navy
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
There's a special agency for it, although the coastguard and RN vessels might be involved as well. None of them have very many ships available for effective enforcement, though, given the huge amount and extent of waters involved. The agency has bought 2 (two, as in one and then another) extra vessels in preparation for Brexit.
Plenty of kippers around the Kent coast who can no doubt be recruited to man the coastguard fishing enforcement vessels
Ah, we’re at the Volkssturm stage of Brexit I see. We know how that turned out...
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Your weak, wet approach to defending British sovereign territory and subjects is far more alarming
So if there was a fight you’d know you would lose, that the generals told you you would lose, you would still fight anyway?
Isn't that what's known as "dying in the last ditch"? I seem to have heard that phrase before in this context.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Your weak, wet approach to defending British sovereign territory and subjects is far more alarming
So if there was a fight you’d know you would lose, that the generals told you you would lose, you would still fight anyway?
Apart from fighting the US, China or Russia the British military would probably defeat every other military on earth, we are unlikely to ever fight the first, a close ally, we would only fight the second with the US and India and the third with NATO anyway not alone
According to WP: The dish originated in England and is an example of culinary fusion, combining Iberian Jewish fried fish with Belgian fried potatoes. Fish and chips is a common take-away food in the United Kingdom and numerous other countries, particularly in English-speaking and Commonwealth nations. Fish and chips first appeared in the UK in the 1860s, and by 1910, there were over 25,000 fish and chip shops across the UK. By the 1930s there were over 35,000 shops, but the trend reversed and by 2009 there were only approximately 10,000.[
Yes, as I remember first fish and chip shop was supposed to have been in the east end by someone called Joseph Mallin, for "fish cooked in the jewish style", or something like that. That Mallin and others mixed in the French/Belgian chips too was supposedly what then made it unique to Britain.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Furthermore, I think I'm right in recalling that several close-to-the-ground quite senior commanders felt that the Falklands War was, in the words of the Duke of Wellington, 'a damn close run thing' and had the Argentinians used better troops than half trained conscripts it could easily have gone the other way.
Argentina has fewer troops now than it did in 1982 and fewer ships, it has a weaker military and could not even win with a stronger one at that time
Whereas the UK...
I suppose we've always got Trident in reserve.
We have more troops and more ships than Argentina, Argentina does not have a single aircraft carrier for example and indeed far fewer submarines than the Royal Navy
Do we have more on a unit cost basis?
The unit being simultaneous war you've got us fighting?
FPT - I didn't understand the hysterical reaction to Diana's death at the time, and I still don't understand it now.
I still remember one of the senior management at the company I worked for at the time sidling up to me and asking whether the country had gone entirely mad. The apparent outbreak of mass hysteria was quite something.
FPT - I didn't understand the hysterical reaction to Diana's death at the time, and I still don't understand it now.
I still remember one of the senior management at the company I worked for at the time sidling up to me and asking whether the country had gone entirely mad. The apparent outbreak of mass hysteria was quite something.
I was stuck in Stoke and they'd closed all the pubs. I wasn't happy.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
There's a special agency for it, although the coastguard and RN vessels might be involved as well. None of them have very many ships available for effective enforcement, though, given the huge amount and extent of waters involved. The agency has bought 2 (two, as in one and then another) extra vessels in preparation for Brexit.
Plenty of kippers around the Kent coast who can no doubt be recruited to man the coastguard fishing enforcement vessels
Ah, we’re at the Volkssturm stage of Brexit I see. We know how that turned out...
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Your weak, wet approach to defending British sovereign territory and subjects is far more alarming
So if there was a fight you’d know you would lose, that the generals told you you would lose, you would still fight anyway?
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
So the UK fish and chip shop industry bust within 2 months as most existing supply chains are cut at a stroke?
No, as all British fish would go to British fish and chip shops, not the continent
What do you make of the science being against you?
Big percentage of Cod consumed in UK is imported. although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to.
Fish don’t recognise national borders. fish life cycle of spawn one place big in another. We are currently have a deal with EU that stops by law others fishing the fish swimming towards us, without that logically we will have less fish swimming towards our nets. Agreement prevents younger fish being harvested in one territorial water until they are bigger fish swum into another’s territorial water. Ours. We need other peoples trawlers in our waters because we need a deal that looks after our interests in the bigger picture.
Is it possible brexit promises based on scientific ignorance, it’s an ignorant position we are negotiating from?
Anecdote time. My dad hasn't been especially well this year. Last week he managed to do a hernia. Anyway, he went to see his GP who sent him off to the hospital. He spent most of Wednesday afternoon in outpatients as the doctors there examined him. He went back on Thursday - and spent all day there - before they decided that he needed surgery, which they'd do on Saturday once he'd been off some pills. Great, we thought, they're not messing around. Anyway, he goes back for one last check on Friday. This time, a doctor who he had not seen at all up to this point examines him and decides that actually, it's not that bad, we don't need to operate. Go home and let us know if you're in any pain.
My dad's observation about the hospital was that, whilst most - but certainly not all - staff were wearing masks and temperatures were being checked, they seemed rather relaxed about COVID. It seems beyond bizarre that they went through to all that effort only to have someone (presumably more senior) veto surgery. I've been concerned about COVID preventing other stuff being done by the NHS. But what my dad went through shocked me. Surely you get the key decision maker involved straight away so that you don't waste time and increase risks of COVID being spread.
In my limited experience communication between departments and clarity over who makes decisions or receive info can be incredibly bad. A relative of mine was expected to inform his specialist doctor about a scan being ready himself, despite not being told it was ready, rather than it just being sent to the doctor, so it just sat there for more than a week with no one looking at it. And it took 3 incredibly unhelpful calls passed around to different people, 2 of whom could barely conceal their disdain at being contacted despite us being directed to call them, to figure that out. Thank goodness the scan showed nothing serious (it had been ordered after an ER visit). Whinge over.
Interesting. They've got a battle on. Anti-roads people dressing up in Lincoln Green costumes.
The assessment doesn't seem to take into account either savings from reductions of congestion elsewhere, or the increase in ZEV - traffic emissions count for more than half of it and we will be overwhelmingly ZEV for perhaps 45-50 years of the 60 year calculated period.
One of a smallish number of BBC stories where I have seen a link direct to What Do They Know.
Of course, ZEV are only zero emissions if they are charged using renewable sources of power.
That's not true.
Nuclear is not renewable, and is Zero Emission.
There are also times when it's more efficient for the grid to generate power than not.
If you ignore the mountains of radioactive waste I suppose. PS: PLus going by our local one , it takes about 100 years to dismantle them
FPT - I didn't understand the hysterical reaction to Diana's death at the time, and I still don't understand it now.
I still remember one of the senior management at the company I worked for at the time sidling up to me and asking whether the country had gone entirely mad. The apparent outbreak of mass hysteria was quite something.
I used to walk daily from Pimlico to Charing Cross, past Buck House. The sea of flowers was astonishing.
(During this period I also went to Trinidad. For less than a day. As you do. An amazing number of people wanted me to take flowers back, to leave there.)
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
There's a special agency for it, although the coastguard and RN vessels might be involved as well. None of them have very many ships available for effective enforcement, though, given the huge amount and extent of waters involved. The agency has bought 2 (two, as in one and then another) extra vessels in preparation for Brexit.
Plenty of kippers around the Kent coast who can no doubt be recruited to man the coastguard fishing enforcement vessels
Ah, we’re at the Volkssturm stage of Brexit I see. We know how that turned out...
More the Home Guard.
And we know how that turned out.
(Into one of our most loved sitcoms.)
So 20 years from now we’ll all be laughing at a sitcom about the exploits of the residents of Deal during the great European trade war.
O/t but I've just been offered a Covid-19 vaccination from my former NHS employer. Whom I left in 2003. Sadly, when I tried to book, apparently I had to be a current member of staff. Got quite excited for a moment.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
So the UK fish and chip shop industry bust within 2 months as most existing supply chains are cut at a stroke?
No, as all British fish would go to British fish and chip shops, not the continent
What do you make of the science being against you?
Big percentage of Cod consumed in UK is imported. although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to.
Fish don’t recognise national borders. fish life cycle of spawn one place big in another. We are currently have a deal with EU that stops by law others fishing the fish swimming towards us, without that logically we will have less fish swimming towards our nets. Agreement prevents younger fish being harvested in one territorial water until they are bigger fish swum into another’s territorial water. Ours. We need other peoples trawlers in our waters because we need a deal that looks after our interests in the bigger picture.
Is it possible brexit promises based on scientific ignorance, it’s an ignorant position we are negotiating from?
Most young fish are in French waters, as they mature they swim to British waters which is why French fishermen need access to British waters, without it they face bankruptcy
FPT - I didn't understand the hysterical reaction to Diana's death at the time, and I still don't understand it now.
Without kicking a dead person, while a tragic event I didn't understand as a child why she was seen as so saintly. She did a lot of charity work promotion, but it seemed that's what all senior royals do. And she'd had a crappy marriage that better for all concerned was ended. Very sad for her family and as a major royal figure sad for the country too. But even so.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
There's a special agency for it, although the coastguard and RN vessels might be involved as well. None of them have very many ships available for effective enforcement, though, given the huge amount and extent of waters involved. The agency has bought 2 (two, as in one and then another) extra vessels in preparation for Brexit.
Plenty of kippers around the Kent coast who can no doubt be recruited to man the coastguard fishing enforcement vessels
Ah, we’re at the Volkssturm stage of Brexit I see. We know how that turned out...
More the Home Guard.
And we know how that turned out.
(Into one of our most loved sitcoms.)
A shyte remake, nostalgia ridden, backward looking and unloved is how it turned out.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Your weak, wet approach to defending British sovereign territory and subjects is far more alarming
So if there was a fight you’d know you would lose, that the generals told you you would lose, you would still fight anyway?
Apart from fighting the US, China or Russia the British military would probably defeat every other military on earth, we are unlikely to ever fight the first, a close ally, we would only fight the second with the US and India and the third with NATO anyway not alone
So... How many Cabinet Ministers have sent the PM a 10 page memo, saying that of course they are fully on board with the strategy, but (in a sentence in the middle of a paragraph on page 7) he really ought to sort out these flaws so that No Deal can work. And how many of those memos will get leaked to a Sunday paper in 2 month's time?
For those who have access Tim Shipman is excellent this morning.
Basically a deal was there (and a compromise on fishing along the lines I'd suggested, even up to 50%) but then France went in at the 11th hour and shat the bed:
Tim Shipman's useful role is in conveying, unmodified by any interpretation, whatever message this government wants to get out but doesn't want to be seen to be saying it.
"Blame the French" is the oldest tool in the UK government's diplomatic toolbox and is trotted out every time the UK does some kind of international muckup. Tony Blair blamed the French for example for his decision to ignore the UN and commit to an illegal invasion of Iraq.
According to WP: The dish originated in England and is an example of culinary fusion, combining Iberian Jewish fried fish with Belgian fried potatoes. Fish and chips is a common take-away food in the United Kingdom and numerous other countries, particularly in English-speaking and Commonwealth nations. Fish and chips first appeared in the UK in the 1860s, and by 1910, there were over 25,000 fish and chip shops across the UK. By the 1930s there were over 35,000 shops, but the trend reversed and by 2009 there were only approximately 10,000.[
Yes, as I remember first fish and chip shop was supposed to have been in the east end by someone called Joseph Mallin, for "fish cooked in the jewish style", or something like that. That Mallin and others mixed in the French/Belgian chips too was supposedly what then made it unique to Britain.
A medical student from Dundee told me many years ago that the reason there were so many chippies in the town was that they were subsidised during the war, because frying potatoes for chips restrains a small amount of Vitamin C which would be lost by other methods of cooking and hence helped to reduce the incidence of scurvy. Probably not true but he was a Scot so shouldn't have had an axe to grind.
According to WP: The dish originated in England and is an example of culinary fusion, combining Iberian Jewish fried fish with Belgian fried potatoes. Fish and chips is a common take-away food in the United Kingdom and numerous other countries, particularly in English-speaking and Commonwealth nations. Fish and chips first appeared in the UK in the 1860s, and by 1910, there were over 25,000 fish and chip shops across the UK. By the 1930s there were over 35,000 shops, but the trend reversed and by 2009 there were only approximately 10,000.[
Yes, as I remember first fish chip and chop was supposed to have been in the east end by someone called Joseph Mallin, for "fish cooked in the jewish style", or something like that. That Mallin and others mixed in the French/Belgian chips too was supposedly what made it unique to Britain.
Really? Culinary fusion ?
I mean fried fish must be medieval in origin and common to many cuisines. Chips require not very much culinary imagination, once potatoes have been introduced from the New World.
Are you really saying the English are so bereft of imagination that they could not come up with the idea of fish and chips without extensive help from Iberian Jews and the Belgians?
I have said some harsh things about the English in my time, but nothing has bad as that
O/t but I've just been offered a Covid-19 vaccination from my former NHS employer. Whom I left in 2003. Sadly, when I tried to book, apparently I had to be a current member of staff. Got quite excited for a moment.
Should they even still have your contact details on file after all this time?
A medical student from Dundee told me many years ago that the reason there were so many chippies in the town was that they were subsidised during the war
I have seen that reported elsewhere, without the scurvy addendum
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
There's a special agency for it, although the coastguard and RN vessels might be involved as well. None of them have very many ships available for effective enforcement, though, given the huge amount and extent of waters involved. The agency has bought 2 (two, as in one and then another) extra vessels in preparation for Brexit.
Plenty of kippers around the Kent coast who can no doubt be recruited to man the coastguard fishing enforcement vessels
Ah, we’re at the Volkssturm stage of Brexit I see. We know how that turned out...
More the Home Guard.
And we know how that turned out.
(Into one of our most loved sitcoms.)
A shyte remake, nostalgia ridden, backward looking and unloved is how it turned out.
But enough of the next Scottish independence campaign.....
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Your weak, wet approach to defending British sovereign territory and subjects is far more alarming
So if there was a fight you’d know you would lose, that the generals told you you would lose, you would still fight anyway?
I think the President of Armenia had to deal with just this situation recently.
If you don’t like Johnson then the practical effects of No Deal is the best way to see him out of the door.
So... How many Cabinet Ministers have sent the PM a 10 page memo, saying that of course they are fully on board with the strategy, but (in a sentence in the middle of a paragraph on page 7) he really ought to sort out these flaws so that No Deal can work. And how many of those memos will get leaked to a Sunday paper in 2 month's time?
Yet again the PM has held himself a hostage to fortune by saying that he is “sure and certain” the COVID situation will allow normality to return by Spring. The experience of October’s Thanksgiving in Canada, and it would tentatively appear the equivalent festival in the States the following month (although we won’t know for certain for another few days), suggests that we might be in for a precipitous rise in Christmas related Covid cases from about the end of the first week in January with the usual tragic outcomes a beginning a fortnight after that. The first participants in the vaccine rollout next week will only be getting their second dose about the time of the increase in cases so it won’t make a difference. On top of that we will have, in late January, continuing supply issues resulting from No Deal. And maybe snow.
The Government’s handling of COVID has terrible ratings that are getting worse again after some signs of marginal improvement. Public opinion is more sophisticated than we give it credit for - but not sophisticated enough by February to say “this situation is terrible for two reasons, one is the fault of the Government, the other the EU”. The country voted for him, for the optimism, the charisma, for not being Corbyn, rather than for boring stuff like ability actually to run an executive. It will repent at leisure.
Anecdote time. My dad hasn't been especially well this year. Last week he managed to do a hernia. Anyway, he went to see his GP who sent him off to the hospital. He spent most of Wednesday afternoon in outpatients as the doctors there examined him. He went back on Thursday - and spent all day there - before they decided that he needed surgery, which they'd do on Saturday once he'd been off some pills. Great, we thought, they're not messing around. Anyway, he goes back for one last check on Friday. This time, a doctor who he had not seen at all up to this point examines him and decides that actually, it's not that bad, we don't need to operate. Go home and let us know if you're in any pain.
My dad's observation about the hospital was that, whilst most - but certainly not all - staff were wearing masks and temperatures were being checked, they seemed rather relaxed about COVID. It seems beyond bizarre that they went through to all that effort only to have someone (presumably more senior) veto surgery. I've been concerned about COVID preventing other stuff being done by the NHS. But what my dad went through shocked me. Surely you get the key decision maker involved straight away so that you don't waste time and increase risks of COVID being spread.
My very best wishes. My Dad hasn't been well either.
He's had a very similar experience to yours. He was discharged (without all the tests being completed) after two weeks as someone else near him suddenly tested positive for Covid.
Thankfully, he was negative and seems to have dodged that bullet but he was stunned by the inefficiency of the NHS.
Have to say unless you get the top guys/girls it really is a lottery with prizes of any other infection you can imagine whilst they work out what to do with you.
They were on here the other day telling people that the ending of reciprocal healthcare was a Good Thing ™ because it was immoral to have other health systems paying.
So I will expect them to greet this news with joy...
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
...and French fishermen? Come the day of your revolution, I hope I am somewhere else!
Was a time the EU would have bought off the French fisherman to get a deal with the UK.
Was a time they had the UK's money to do it with...
Thought we were still paying big bucks, they could use the 40B exit fee the Tories gifted them surely
Trump's Georgia rally is near-disastrous for the GOP run-offs. Instead of focusing on the two Republican candidates he has launched a vitriolic attack on Governor Brian Kemp, pressuring him to call a special session and convince state legislators to select their own electors that would support him, according to a Washington Post source. He also asked the Republican governor to order an audit of absentee ballot signatures
Then, at the rally, he went on another of his narcissistic tantrum rants.
I'm beginning to dare to hope that the Democrats might just win both run-offs. Early voting begins a week tomorrow.
The EC will be decided on December 14th when Biden will be elected, at which point there is no prospect of Trump becoming President again and the question in the run offs is not defeating Trump but stopping Democratic dominance of every branch of the Federal government and the far left pushing their agenda in Congress, which will in turn drive GOP turnout
The Democrats driven by the far left will dominate? Sounds good. Always knew that Comrade Biden's long sleeper infiltration would pay off in the end. Was he directly involved in that pineapple pizza paedophile ring too?
Don't forget they'll have at best 50 seats in the Senate, which per Horseshoe Theory means that *Bernie Sanders holds the balance of power*
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
So the UK fish and chip shop industry bust within 2 months as most existing supply chains are cut at a stroke?
No, as all British fish would go to British fish and chip shops, not the continent
What do you make of the science being against you?
Big percentage of Cod consumed in UK is imported. although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to.
Fish don’t recognise national borders. fish life cycle of spawn one place big in another. We are currently have a deal with EU that stops by law others fishing the fish swimming towards us, without that logically we will have less fish swimming towards our nets. Agreement prevents younger fish being harvested in one territorial water until they are bigger fish swum into another’s territorial water. Ours. We need other peoples trawlers in our waters because we need a deal that looks after our interests in the bigger picture.
Is it possible brexit promises based on scientific ignorance, it’s an ignorant position we are negotiating from?
Most young fish are in French waters, as they mature they swim to British waters which is why French fishermen need access to British waters, without it they face bankruptcy
Move over German car manufacturers and Prosecco makers, there’s an exciting addition to your ranks.
"Blame the French" is the oldest tool in the UK government's diplomatic toolbox and is trotted out every time the UK does some kind of international muckup. Tony Blair blamed the French for example for his decision to ignore the UN and commit to an illegal invasion of Iraq.
It still rankles with me that Blair and Campbell, who both speak decent French, misrepresented Chirac's position on the UN resolution.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
Boris will ban EU fishing boats from all British waters apparently if No Deal
I know. That's been said. How many ships will it take, and do we have them?
NO NO and NO, will be a laugh at them shouting please leave English waters you naughty Frenchies.
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
All waters? How many ships will that take?
The RN has a surfeit of OPVs for fisheries enforcement as delays to the T26 program meant the MoD had to order a batch of River Class vessels it didn't need to keep BAE happy.
RN and coastguard patrols also have migrants in dinghies and Russian subs tapping our Channel cables to worry about, of course. And drug smuggling.
@Dura_Ace - Did you see HYUFD's reply to you in the last thread? Apparently we should ignore you because you are a Scottish nationalist. I'm not quite sure of the logic of that.
Edit: And your point about RASsing munitoons at sea was a most interesting one - one I had not know. Much easier in my dad's day when all he had to worry about was 14" and 4.5" and Bofors rounds.
Trump's Georgia rally is near-disastrous for the GOP run-offs. Instead of focusing on the two Republican candidates he has launched a vitriolic attack on Governor Brian Kemp, pressuring him to call a special session and convince state legislators to select their own electors that would support him, according to a Washington Post source. He also asked the Republican governor to order an audit of absentee ballot signatures
Then, at the rally, he went on another of his narcissistic tantrum rants.
I'm beginning to dare to hope that the Democrats might just win both run-offs. Early voting begins a week tomorrow.
Trump is quite mad. And his madness is incredibly corrosive to democracy in America.
Sometimes history throws up these weird accidents.... It's impossible not to see Johnson and Trump as a couple. 'Big Me and Little Me'. The more narcissistic and befuddled Trump gets the more we see it in Johnson.
Emily M interviewed Andrew Bridgen on Newsnight last Friday and she pointed out how difficult trading was going to be with the US now Trump had gone. 'He HASN'T gone yet' interrupted Bridgen as though it could still be reversed.
This seemed odd until it occurred to me that he too realised that Johnson and Trump are seen as two halves of the same clown.
I cant believe we're talking about a no deal at this point..but has anyone considered the impact this has on Ireland? Let alone the impact on the UK - but Ireland becomes a market at the fringe of the EU, having to use land through the UK for export (albeit it can use the new ferry route - which doubles the journey time and lacks capacity)
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
There's a special agency for it, although the coastguard and RN vessels might be involved as well. None of them have very many ships available for effective enforcement, though, given the huge amount and extent of waters involved. The agency has bought 2 (two, as in one and then another) extra vessels in preparation for Brexit.
Plenty of kippers around the Kent coast who can no doubt be recruited to man the coastguard fishing enforcement vessels
Ah, we’re at the Volkssturm stage of Brexit I see. We know how that turned out...
More the Home Guard.
And we know how that turned out.
(Into one of our most loved sitcoms.)
A shyte remake, nostalgia ridden, backward looking and unloved is how it turned out.
But enough of the next Scottish independence campaign.....
Like the story of someone willing to have sex for £1M, but not for £5, the principle of allowing EU boats to fish in UK waters has been conceded, we are just haggling over the price...
If we go to No Deal then that offer will be withdrawn and as Marr has just mentioned on BBC1 EU fishing boats will be banned from British waters, I presume enforced by the Royal Navy
The Britain of 1982.
Well it certainly worked then, as I responded to Dura Ace in his usual anti British whinge in the last thread over the Falklands in the unlikely event Argentina invaded again then we have more ships, planes and aircraft carriers and troops than Argentina.
The UK government would send a full expeditionary force to the FI, use its submarines to sink every single Argentine ship in the south Atlantic, and then after a period of bombing of and missile attacks on Argentine positions on the islands from the aircraft carriers, send in the paras and special forces to retake the islands exactly as we did in 1982
For a committed Christian, the value you place on (Argentinian) lives is very much of the Old Testament.
You'll have the Royal Navy sinking French fishing vessels next!
War is war, if you are defending your own people then tough measures are necessary, as you correctly mention Moses and God took exactly that perspective when defending the Israelites from the Egyptians for example in the Old Testament.
Hopefully they will not be needed and Argentina will stick to its position now of accepting that they cannot overturn by force the fact the Falkland Islanders wish to stay British
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the self-determination of Falkland Islanders, it was your cavalier, Old Testament attitude to human life that alarmed me.
Your weak, wet approach to defending British sovereign territory and subjects is far more alarming
So if there was a fight you’d know you would lose, that the generals told you you would lose, you would still fight anyway?
Apart from fighting the US, China or Russia the British military would probably defeat every other military on earth, we are unlikely to ever fight the first, a close ally, we would only fight the second with the US and India and the third with NATO anyway not alone
Afghanistan?
Bin Laden now dead and Al Qaeda removed from the country and the Taliban removed from power but again we did that as part of a Coalition led by the US, not alone
Sometimes history throws up these weird accidents.... It's impossible not to see Johnson and Trump as a couple. 'Big Me and Little Me'. The more narcissistic and befuddled Trump gets the more we see it in Johnson.
Emily M interviewed Andrew Bridgen on Newsnight last Friday and she pointed out how difficult trading was going to be with the US now Trump had gone. 'He HASN'T gone yet' interrupted Bridgen as though it could still be reversed.
This seemed odd until it occurred to me that he too realised that Johnson and Trump are seen as two halves of the same clown.
If Williamson is the moron's moron, WTF does that make Bridgen?
According to WP: The dish originated in England and is an example of culinary fusion, combining Iberian Jewish fried fish with Belgian fried potatoes. Fish and chips is a common take-away food in the United Kingdom and numerous other countries, particularly in English-speaking and Commonwealth nations. Fish and chips first appeared in the UK in the 1860s, and by 1910, there were over 25,000 fish and chip shops across the UK. By the 1930s there were over 35,000 shops, but the trend reversed and by 2009 there were only approximately 10,000.[
Yes, as I remember first fish and chip shop was supposed to have been in the east end by someone called Joseph Mallin, for "fish cooked in the jewish style", or something like that. That Mallin and others mixed in the French/Belgian chips too was supposedly what then made it unique to Britain.
A medical student from Dundee told me many years ago that the reason there were so many chippies in the town was that they were subsidised during the war, because frying potatoes for chips restrains a small amount of Vitamin C which would be lost by other methods of cooking and hence helped to reduce the incidence of scurvy. Probably not true but he was a Scot so shouldn't have had an axe to grind.
A lot of the nutrients in a potato are in the skin. Also the high temperatures used to fry potatoes do no favours to the Vitamins which can be destroyed by high heat.
The best way to get nutrition from a potato is to bake it, skin and all, at about 150°C and then eat the lot.
Comments
In the immediate aftermath of the election there were still a reasonable number not just in the former group, but, importantly, relatively sane people in the former group. So he was still hearing relatively moderate options that he could pursue as he attempted to hold on to the Presidency. As the legal losses have mounted up and options reduced, this former group have melted away. Because they can' t offer him what he wants - a viable route to staying in the White House. So over time the "advice" is coming from the crazier ones that he trusts and, increasingly, the other group who is just adjusting the advice to ever more extreme options.
And that only leads inevitably to one outcome - an attempted formal coup. Whether by force of arms, or attempting quasi-plausible sounding legal options like "invoking the insurrection act" or other emergency powers. He's going to try it. You just wait. Or will do unless a serious bulk of Republican lawmakers finally show some spine and stand up to him.
Hope I'm wrong.
If you have changed your mind about the value of your friendship just drop them.
If you still value them as friends then turn a blind eye to their stupidity in this instance.
I wouldn't engage with them on it. Waste of time and distressing.
You don't defeat this by shutting down their platform, you defeat them by having a better argument. You of all people should know this Alastair. You spent 20 years calling Eurosceptics racists and loonies then forgot to come up with an argument for why remaining was better than leaving. I'm not sure repeating that with lockdowns or the virus is going to be helpful.
EDIT: the other being Delaware.
BTW if COVID had not happened then he might have been able to get away with blaming the EU. But his incompetence has been laid bare and voters are simply not going to say “oh, he got COVID wrong, but the played a blinder with the EU”. People just don’t like or trust him anymore, that increasingly includes his own party.
A little humour to lighten HYUFD'S General Idi Amin strategism is appreciated.
People like Alastair are always worried that those who are less clever and less informed will be misled. But I suspect that a lot of what he is worrying about (because it is plainly wrong) simply passes most people by without them even noticing. A good test case is coming up. How many people will choose not to be vaccinated? I suspect very few, especially as the millions of us who receive it seem ok after all and can still use aeroplanes and go to football matches.
Sometimes, I would argue most times, you need to weigh the cost of acting as well as the cost of not acting. Its not something our political classes are very good at. They like to be seen doing things. In this case the cost of imposing the type of restrictions that Alastair appears to be wanting on free speech is, in my view, excessive just as the idiotic Leveson proposals were.
Mock, laugh, correct, ignore but don't ban except as a very last resort (inciting violence, for example).
"Large cod and chips, please".
"Sorry, we don't have that sir, but have you tried mackerel?"
How many Cabinet Ministers have sent the PM a 10 page memo, saying that of course they are fully on board with the strategy, but (in a sentence in the middle of a paragraph on page 7) he really ought to sort out these flaws so that No Deal can work.
And how many of those memos will get leaked to a Sunday paper in 2 month's time?
We didn’t have General HYUFD back then.
Edit, apologies, didn't see these had already been spotted.
I suppose we've always got Trident in reserve.
The unit being simultaneous war you've got us fighting?
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1335526749929689090?s=21
And we know how that turned out.
(Into one of our most loved sitcoms.)
Big percentage of Cod consumed in UK is imported. although cod can swim out of EU waters and live okay in ours, they don’t tend to.
Fish don’t recognise national borders. fish life cycle of spawn one place big in another. We are currently have a deal with EU that stops by law others fishing the fish swimming towards us, without that logically we will have less fish swimming towards our nets. Agreement prevents younger fish being harvested in one territorial water until they are bigger fish swum into another’s territorial water. Ours. We need other peoples trawlers in our waters because we need a deal that looks after our interests in the bigger picture.
Is it possible brexit promises based on scientific ignorance, it’s an ignorant position we are negotiating from?
PS: PLus going by our local one , it takes about 100 years to dismantle them
(During this period I also went to Trinidad. For less than a day. As you do. An amazing number of people wanted me to take flowers back, to leave there.)
Got quite excited for a moment.
What damage has he just done to the negotiation?
If back bench brexiteers arn’t calling for his sacking, then it’s their problem of lost influence in long run.
"Blame the French" is the oldest tool in the UK government's diplomatic toolbox and is trotted out every time the UK does some kind of international muckup. Tony Blair blamed the French for example for his decision to ignore the UN and commit to an illegal invasion of Iraq.
I mean fried fish must be medieval in origin and common to many cuisines. Chips require not very much culinary imagination, once potatoes have been introduced from the New World.
Are you really saying the English are so bereft of imagination that they could not come up with the idea of fish and chips without extensive help from Iberian Jews and the Belgians?
I have said some harsh things about the English in my time, but nothing has bad as that
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1335529152896700418
The Government’s handling of COVID has terrible ratings that are getting worse again after some signs of marginal improvement. Public opinion is more sophisticated than we give it credit for - but not sophisticated enough by February to say “this situation is terrible for two reasons, one is the fault of the Government, the other the EU”. The country voted for him, for the optimism, the charisma, for not being Corbyn, rather than for boring stuff like ability actually to run an executive. It will repent at leisure.
So I will expect them to greet this news with joy...
You defeat bad ideas by facing up to them, tackling them and defeating them with the facts. If you can't do that, they're maybe not bad ideas.
Edit: And your point about RASsing munitoons at sea was a most interesting one - one I had not know. Much easier in my dad's day when all he had to worry about was 14" and 4.5" and Bofors rounds.
Emily M interviewed Andrew Bridgen on Newsnight last Friday and she pointed out how difficult trading was going to be with the US now Trump had gone. 'He HASN'T gone yet' interrupted Bridgen as though it could still be reversed.
This seemed odd until it occurred to me that he too realised that Johnson and Trump are seen as two halves of the same clown.
https://twitter.com/MichaelAodhan/status/1335347927120834560
The best way to get nutrition from a potato is to bake it, skin and all, at about 150°C and then eat the lot.